King v. Norton, Civ. No. B-348.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
Writing for the CourtStewart H. Jones, U. S. Atty., B. Blair Crawford, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendants
Citation336 F. Supp. 255
PartiesHoward KING v. John J. NORTON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut; United States of America.
Docket NumberCiv. No. B-348.
Decision Date07 January 1972

336 F. Supp. 255

Howard KING
v.
John J. NORTON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut; United States of America.

Civ. No. B-348.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

January 7, 1972.


336 F. Supp. 256

Howard King, pro se.

Stewart H. Jones, U. S. Atty., B. Blair Crawford, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BLUMENFELD, Chief Judge.

Howard King, a federal prisoner presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, petitioned this court on August 25, 1971, for injunctive relief to prevent his transfer from the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut, to his present place of confinement. Although an order to show cause was entered to stay that transfer pending a hearing, the transfer was accomplished before notice of the order was given to the prison authorities. Petitioner now requests that the transfer be declared illegal, and that he be returned to Danbury. The defendants have moved for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(b).

The petitioner was sentenced on September 16, 1970, under Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4253, "to the custody of the Surgeon General for treatment in a hospital of the service for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed three (3) years" by Judge Theodore Levin of the Eastern District of Michigan.

According to the affidavit of John M. McCullough, Director of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Unit at Danbury, the petitioner made poor progress in the rehabilitation program, then dropped out of it voluntarily on May 1, 1971. McCullough's further statement that the petitioner subsequently disrupted the program by spreading his dissatisfaction with it among other inmates is denied by the petitioner. McCullough stated that the recommendation that King be transferred was made by the members of King's treatment team in consultation with McCullough. The request for transfer was approved by the Case Management Branch of the Bureau of Prisons, and subsequently by the Reclassification Committee at Danbury, which consists of administrative personnel. The Committee acted on the basis of the rehabilitation staff's recommendation.

Petitioner's request may be construed as an application to review and set aside the order of transfer, claiming that the transfer was without statutory authority and violated due process.1

The Merits

Transfers of prison inmates are made under the authority of the Attorney General as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b), which provides that "The Attorney General . . . may at any time transfer a person from one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Lovell v. Arnold, Civ. No. 75-279.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 1975
    ...910, 91 S.Ct. 155, 27 L.Ed.2d 150; Mercer v. United States Medical Center, W.D.Mo. 1970, 312 F.Supp. 1077; King v. Norton, D.Conn.1972, 336 F.Supp. 255. In addition, the exercise of jurisdiction over a prisoner who has violated the law of more than one sovereign is solely a question of comi......
  • U.S. v. Vanderlaan, No. 90-2008
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 4, 1990
    ...by ensuring that the offender remained in custody in a correctional facility until he was ready for parole. See King v. Norton, 336 F.Supp. 255, 257 (D.Conn.1972) ("Petitioner contends that his sentence under [NARA] limits his confinement to federal institutions with rehabilitation faciliti......
2 cases
  • Lovell v. Arnold, Civ. No. 75-279.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 1975
    ...910, 91 S.Ct. 155, 27 L.Ed.2d 150; Mercer v. United States Medical Center, W.D.Mo. 1970, 312 F.Supp. 1077; King v. Norton, D.Conn.1972, 336 F.Supp. 255. In addition, the exercise of jurisdiction over a prisoner who has violated the law of more than one sovereign is solely a question of comi......
  • U.S. v. Vanderlaan, No. 90-2008
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 4, 1990
    ...by ensuring that the offender remained in custody in a correctional facility until he was ready for parole. See King v. Norton, 336 F.Supp. 255, 257 (D.Conn.1972) ("Petitioner contends that his sentence under [NARA] limits his confinement to federal institutions with rehabilitation faciliti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT