In re Huse

• Decision Date: 23 February 1897
• Docket Number: 338.
• Parties: In re HUSE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

79 F. 305

In re HUSE.

No. 338.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 23, 1897

That 'he is unlawfully and forcibly imprisoned, and against his will detained, restrained of his liberty and lawful rights, * * * in the Southern California State Insane Asylum for the Insane and Inebriates, at Highland, county of San Bernardino, state of California. ' That the facts upon which this charge is made are set forth upon information and belief, and are substantially as follows: On November 21 1885, at Santa Barbara, Cal., the petitioner was 'forcibly, maliciously, and unlawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest, * * * on malicious and false pretenses such as that your petitioner was dangerously insane, and dangerous to life and property. ' That it was 'willfully, falsely, maliciously, collusively, and unlawfully, as this petitioner believes, pretended that this affiant was insane in such a high grade of madness of insanity that, * * * if allowed to remain unarrested and free, he would be in danger of destroying his own life or property, or the lives or property of others. ' That his arrest 'was procured by collusion of one D. P. Hatch then the only judge of the superior court of the county of Santa Barbara, state of California, secretly associated with persons combined for the purposes of maligning with guile, out of envy for fame's sake, and avarice, your petitioner, and to deprive him of his lawful rights. ' That he was never examined 'by any physicians authorized by the provisions of section 2214 of the Political Code, nor at all. ' That he was not examined before any magistrate of a court of record in any place, nor at any time, nor at all, in pursuance of the law of the land. That he was in February, 1886, discharged from the Napa Asylum. That on March 23, 1887, he was again unlawfully arrested, without any warrant of arrest, and reimprisoned in the Napa Asylum, contrary to law. That he was not examined by any physician, as provided by law. That in 1894 he was transferred to the Southern California State Insane Asylum for the Insane and Inebriates, at Highland, county of San Bernardino, without lawful authority. 'That his civil rights have been unlawfully denied to him. ' That no legal complaint was made to authorize the warrant of arrest. That he 'has been and is deprived of his lawful and constitutional rights * * * by said state of California. ' That his examination was in open violation of both the federal and state constitutions, as well as the laws. 'That he cannot enforce his lawful rights in the courts of the state of California after due efforts. ' That the document in possession of the medical director of the Highland Asylum, by virtue of which the petitioner is held, 'is a forgery and counterfeited, in pursuance of the said collusion, in order to prevent this affiant to retrieve his liberty.'

F. F. Gallardo, for the petitioner.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

HAWLEY District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The facts set forth in the petition are not of such a character as to authorize this court to issue the writ. It is within the province of the state legislature to determine the method of procedure that should be followed in procuring the confinement of persons who have become insane to such an extent as to render them dangerous to the community, or to themselves, to be at large. If the steps provided for by the statute of the state have not been followed, the redress of persons who have been improperly confined without warrant or authority of law is by application to the courts of the state. The federal courts ought not, except in extreme cases, if at all, be called upon to interfere. Nearly all the averments in the petition are merely conclusions of law, and the petition might properly be denied because it does not state any facts which would authorize the issuance of the writ. It was never intended by congress that the courts of the United States should, by writs of habeas corpus, obstruct the ordinary administration of the criminal laws, or laws relating to the confinement of insane persons, through its own tribunals. In Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 151, 6 Sup.Ct. 734, 740, the court, in considering the character of cases that would justify the courts of the United States by virtue of writs of habeas corpus to wrest the petitioner from the custody of the state officers, said:

'We are of opinion that, while the circuit court has the power to do so, and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the national constitution, it is not bound in every case to exercise such a power immediately upon application being made for the writ. We cannot suppose that congress intended to compel those courts, by such means, to draw to themselves, in the first instance, the control of all criminal prosecutions commenced in state courts exercising authority within the same territorial limits, where the accused claims that he is held in custody in violation of the constitution of the United States. The injunction to hear the case summarily, and thereupon to dispose of the party as law and justice require, does not deprive the court of discretion as to the time and mode in which it will exert the powers conferred upon it. That discretion should be

...