Harper v. Ciccone, 20128
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | 20189.,No. 20128,20128 |
| Parties | Walter F. HARPER, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee, (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Walter F. Harper, pro se.
No brief was filed by counsel for appellee.
Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244, in September, 1969, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California committed Walter Franklin Harper (appellant) to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. Shortly after his arrival at the Federal Medical Center in October, appellant filed two petitions in the United States Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking habeas corpus and other relief. He attacked the legality of his confinement, asserting, inter alia that the committing order was not valid, that he was denied the privilege of dismissing his attorney, that he was not appropriately indicted in the committing court, and that he was unlawfully confined in a federal prison although he had not yet been convicted. Additionally, appellant complained of the conditions of his confinement in the Federal Medical Center, in that he was being deprived of proper legal assistance, the services of a notary public and that appellee was "tampering with" his legal materials.
After carefully considering appellant's claims, which included an evidentiary hearing relating to the conditions of his confinement and the alleged failure of the Federal Medical Center to provide appellant with adequate legal assistance, the district court denied him any relief and dismissed his petitions. Leave was granted, however, by the district court to appeal in forma pauperis from both judgments of dismissal.
Appeal No. 20,128 was docketed in this court on January 26, 1970, and No. 20,189 on March 9, 1970.
Upon motion of appellee, the appeals were consolidated. Presently before us is the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the issues have been rendered moot by appellant's transfer from the Federal Medical Center to the Folsom State Prison, Represa, California for confinement pending trial of the federal charge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The evidence submitted in support of the motion to dismiss has been examined. It conclusively demonstrates appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duran v. Morris
...F.2d 724, 726 (8th Cir. 1970). This principle was likewise applied to a transfer from one penal facility to another in Harper v. Ciccone, 434 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1970), where the court dismissed an appeal in a habeas corpus case, holding that petitioner's claim "has been mooted because he is......
-
Guy v. Ciccone, 20190.
...confinement have now been mooted by his complete release from any confinement, and this appeal must be dismissed. See Harper v. Ciccone, 434 F. 2d 247 (8th Cir. 1970); cf. Hudson v. Hardy, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 424 F.2d 854, 856, n.5 (1970). BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, joined by LAY, Circuit Jud......
-
Midgett v. Grant, Civ. A. No. 19275-3A.
...complains of conditions of confinement therein, therefore, his petition is moot. Ayers v. Ciccone (C.A.8) 431 F.2d 724, 726; Harper v. Ciccone (C.A.8) 434 F.2d 247. The petition was not, by the same fact, moot, however, respecting petitioner's allegations of improper commitment to the "Muni......
-
Henry v. Ciccone, 20422.
...under the Great Writ. However, we have no choice but to dismiss. See Ayers v. Ciccone, 431 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1970) and Harper v. Ciccone, 434 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1971). However, unless the situation is corrected there will be another day in which we will have the power to We are grateful fo......