Innes v. Hiatt, Civil Action No. 1445.
| Decision Date | 21 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1445. |
| Citation | 57 F. Supp. 17 |
| Parties | INNES v. HIATT, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Petitioner pro se.
Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lewisburg, Pa., for William H. Hiatt.
The petitioner, Peter J. Innes, Jr., having been sentenced by a General Court-Martial of the United States Army, and presently serving the sentence imposed, is now imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The prisoner has filed a petition which he designates "Petition for the issuance of an Injunction and Declaratory Judgment and a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum." In this proceeding he asks for an order enjoining the respondents from computing the length of his confinement "in any other manner except that prescribed by military law which was in force and effect at the time of sentence being imposed" upon him, and "a further order restraining and forbidding the respondents from enforcing or attempting to enforce any provisions of the so-called `conditional release law' of the Civil Code insofar as the petitioner is concerned."
This petitioner, in connection with this present sentence, has heretofore raised other numerous questions. United States ex rel. Innes v. Crystal, 2 Cir., 131 F.2d 576, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 755, 63 S. Ct. 1164, 87 L.Ed. 1708, rehearing denied 319 U.S. 783, 63 S.Ct. 1173, 87 L.Ed. 1727; United States ex rel. Innes v. Hiatt, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 756 and United States ex rel. Innes v. Stimson, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 425, affirmed 3 Cir., 141 F.2d 664.
As to the request of the petitioner for a declaratory judgment, it being in effect an action against the United States, the Declaratory Judgments Act, Jud.Code § 274d, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, does not apply. Yeskel v. United States, D.C.N.J.1940, 31 F.Supp. 956.
Moreover, treating the proceedings under the designation of "injunction", it is in effect an attempt to obtain a mandamus against the Warden of the Penitentiary to change his records, and this Court has heretofore pointed out that where the action is not in aid of this court's jurisdiction but is an original proceeding in mandamus, the District Court has no jurisdiction. Hogan v. Hill, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 975, affirmed 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 1017.
Even if this Court considered petitioner's application for relief as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, it would be premature, inasmuch as the petitioner is now legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. United States
...been denied in a prior proceeding, or the petition lacked merit. See Gibson v. United States, 161 F.2d 973 (C.A.6, 1947); Innes v. Hiatt, 57 F. Supp. 17 (M.D.Pa.1944); United States v. Rollnick, 33 F.Supp. 863, 866-867 (M.D. (iv). Since the Interstate Commerce Act provides for relief from C......
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States
...restraining Commission from interfering with his business prior to exhaustion of his administrative remedies); Innes v. Hiatt, D.C. M.D.Pa., 1944, 57 F.Supp. 17 (plaintiff, a prisoner sentenced by a court-martial, seeking order enjoining defendant warden from computing the length of his con......
-
Clausell v. Turner
...whether the United States can ever be sued under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. (1964). See Innes v. Hiatt, 57 F.Supp. 17 (E.D.Pa.1944); Yeskel v. United States, 31 F.Supp. 956 (D.N.J. 1940). But see King v. United States, 390 F.2d 894, 182 Ct.Cl. 631 (1968), cert. g......
-
Bates v. Wilkinson
...388, 389; Johnson v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1947, 71 F.Supp. 865, affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 163 F.2d 1018. See also, Innes v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1944, 57 F.Supp. 17; O'Connor v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 179; Jackson v. Humphrey, D.C. M.D.Pa.1950, 92 F.Supp. 635; McKnight v. Hunter, D.C.......