Lee v. Giles
| Decision Date | 04 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 736-E. |
| Parties | James LEE, Petitioner, v. Dr. J. W. GILES, Director, Veterans Administration Hospital, Tuskegee, Alabama, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
J. L. Chestnut, Jr., Selma, Ala., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
James Lee, a patient in the Veterans Administration Hospital in Tuskegee, Macon County, Alabama, committed to that hospital pursuant to Title 21, § 175, Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958, by order dated July 18, 1967, by the probate judge of Dallas County, Alabama, now presents to this Court his application for the writ of habeas corpus.
From the application for the writ, it appears that petitioner was, prior to and on the date of his commitment to said Veterans Administration Hospital, an inhabitant of Dallas County, Alabama, that he is a veteran and is eligible for treatment in a Veterans Administration facility. The statute under which the petitioner was committed by the probate judge of Dallas County, Alabama, codified in Title 21, § 175 of the Code of Alabama, authorizes probate judges to commit veterans to available United States veterans' hopitals where facilities are available. This section further provides that when such veteran is committed he shall be subject to the rules and regulations of such hospital and that the officials of such hospital shall be vested with the same powers now exercised by superintendents of Alabama hospitals for mental diseases with reference to the retention of custody of the veteran so committed. This Alabama statute further provides that notice of such proceedings shall be furnished the person so committed and his right to appear and defend shall not be denied.
Petitioner asks this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the director of the Veterans Administration Hospital at Tuskegee, Alabama, to produce him before this Court to the end that an inquiry may be conducted into the legality of petitioner's detention and, further, that petitioner be ordered discharged. The basis for petitioner's request that he be discharged is that the Alabama statute under which he was committed, and which is referred to above, is unconstitutional on its face and, furthermore, was unconstitutionally applied when petitioner was committed to the facility in question. Petitioner further contends that the statute does not contain proper standards and that notice was not given to the petitioner that a proceeding was pending against him in the probate court of Dallas County, Alabama. By reason of these contentions, petitioner concludes that his commitment and his present incarceration violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
From the application for the writ, it appears that petitioner seeks to prosecute his case in this court on the theory that jurisdiction of his case is vested in the United States District Court wherein Macon County is situated, for the reason that the petitioner is confined in a hospital owned and maintained by the United States Government. Furthermore, petitioner is evidently proceeding upon the theory that jurisdiction is in this court for the reason that he contends his federally-guaranteed constitutional rights have been and are being violated by reason of his alleged illegal commitment and incarceration.
It affirmatively appears that petitioner has not resorted to the courts of the State of Alabama in an effort to obtain relief. Generally, an application for a writ of habeas corpus by or in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted by a court of the United States unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state. Title 28, § 2254, United States Code. There is no contention on the part of the petitioner that there are no remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Alabama. Indeed, it would be impossible to make such a showing, since Alabama specifically provides by statute, Title 15, § 3, Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958, that any person confined as insane may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate state courts.
The question is presented, therefore, as to whether an individual committed to a facility of the United States pursuant to a judgment of a state court may, without attempting to avail himself of state habeas corpus remedies, proceed on his application for the writ of habeas corpus in the United States district courts. In a case factually similar to the case now presented, the Court in Hall v. Verdel, et al., W.D.Va.1941, 40 F.Supp. 941, in a well-reasoned opinion, declined jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. In that case, the Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilal v. Carroll, Case No. 3:14cv331/MCR/CJK
...exhaustion and the cognizability of his claim in a habeas proceeding are distinguishable. In the cases petitioner cites - Lee v. Giles, 271 F. Supp. 785 (M.D. Ala. 1967); United States ex rel. Antczak v. Superintendent, Downey Veterans Admin. Hosp., North Chicago, Ill., 354 F.2d 635 (7th Ci......
-
Advertiser Co. v. Wallace
...v. District of Columbia, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 469 F.2d 927 (1972) (state courts are obligated to hear 1983 actions); see Lee v. Giles, 271 F.Supp. 785 (M.D.Ala.1967) ("the courts of the several states have a duty to furnish judicial protection of all rights guaranteed by the Constitution o......
-
Com. ex rel. Saunders v. Creamer
...368 U.S. 502, 82 S.Ct. 519, 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962); United States ex rel. Hill v. Johnston, 321 F.Supp. 818 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Lee v. Giles, 271 F.Supp. 785 (M.D.Ala.1967); Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey, 318 F.Supp. 244 (N.D.Ala.1970).4 Apparently this refers to the rights and privileges of inmate......