In re Ryan
Decision Date | 24 December 1942 |
Docket Number | No. M-993.,M-993. |
Citation | 47 F. Supp. 10 |
Parties | In re RYAN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
John J. McDevitt, Jr., and Michael Francis Doyle, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Arthur Littleton, Thomas B. K. Ringe, and John R. McConnell (of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius), all of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Rehearing Denied December 24, 1942. See 47 F.Supp. 1023.
This action arises on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of William Ryan from confinement in the Institute of Mental Hygiene in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A return was filed on behalf of the respondent in which it is alleged that the confinement is in conformity with the provisions of Section 302 of the Mental Health Act of Pennsylvania. Considerable expert testimony was adduced before me relating to the mental condition of Ryan and the advisability of his confinement in this or in any institution.
The Mental Health Act of 1923, Act of July 11, 1923, P.L.998, 50 P.S. §§ 1-213, provides a comprehensive system for the commitment and custody of mentally ill persons. Section 302 of the Act, 50 P.S. § 42, which permits a mental hospital to receive in custody, without court order, a person alleged to be mentally ill and upon which respondent in the case at bar has authority for the confinement of Ryan, provides a number of safeguards against its abuse. This section reads:
In addition, the Mental Health Act of 1923 specifically and carefully protects the rights of persons committed under its provisions. By Section 601 of Article VI of the Act, 50 P.S. § 171, a committed person is granted, inter alia, the following rights:
The petitioner in the case at bar charged that the confinement of Ryan was not made in conformity with the provisions of Section 302 of the Mental Health Act and that, even if it were, the Act is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in that it deprives a person committed thereunder of his liberty without due process of law.
I find it unnecessary to consider the merits of this matter because it does not present a case in which a federal court should assume jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The laws of Pennsylvania have established the procedure for confinement of persons alleged to be mentally ill and the tribunals and methods by which their rights may be protected and, in the absence of exceptional circumstances not present in the case at bar, there is no reason why the federal courts should be called upon to interfere. As was said in In re Huse, 9 Cir., 79 F. 305, at page 306: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mid-Continent Airlines v. Nebraska State Board of Eq.
...68 S.Ct. 44, 92 L.Ed. 363; U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Ragen, 7 cir., 153 F.2d 902; Ex parte Barnard, D.C.Ill., 52 F. Supp. 102; In re Ryan, D.C.Pa., 47 F.Supp. 10. It will not be supposed that Section 2254 is less operative than was the antecedent judicially devised rule to deny such In testing......
-
Miller v. Director, Middletown State Hospital
...issued by the County Judge of Orange County, New York, the writ was withdrawn at Miller's request in April, 1955. 11 E. g., In re Ryan, D.C.E.D.Pa.1942, 47 F.Supp. 10; Ex parte Moore, D.C. D.Ore.1942, 43 F.Supp. 886; Hall v. Verdel, D.C.W.D.Va.1941, 40 F.Supp. 941; United States ex rel. Gro......
-
US v. Maryans, S92-401M.
...in part on other grounds, 871 F.2d 1172 (2nd Cir.1989); Blackwell v. Vance Trucking, 139 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.S.C. 1956); In re Ryan, 47 F.Supp. 10, 13 (E.D.Penn.1942); Southern Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 27 F.Supp. 485, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1939); see generally 6......
-
Murray v. Radauskas
...126 (D.C.M.D.Pa.1936). Only in extreme and well defined cases should the federal courts assume jurisdiction in such a case. In re Ryan, 47 F.Supp. 10 (E.D.Pa. 1942). In this case there has been no charge against the constitutionality of the Maryland statutory procedures for determining comp......