Lloyd v. Heritage
| Decision Date | 27 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 7693. |
| Citation | 199 F. Supp. 46 |
| Parties | Robert Clayton LLOYD, Petitioner v. David M. HERITAGE, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Robert Clayton Lloyd, pro se.
Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., and Allen L. Chancey, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Petitioner seeks the writ of habeas corpus upon the ground as alleged that the respondent as Warden of the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, caused an unauthorized forfeiture of petitioner's good time. It is alleged that "the prison authorities at Atlanta Penitentiary fraudulently, arbitrarily and unlawfully forfeited about 100 days of petitioner's good time on supposedly reliable information of an informer," and petitioner wishes to be confronted by this informer.
(1) The matter of granting and forfeiting of good time is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the prison authorities and their action cannot be set aside unless it is shown that they have acted arbitrarily or fraudulently, and such a finding must be supported by substantial evidence. See Powell v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 172 F.2d 330. The mere allegation that the Board has acted arbitrarily is a mere conclusion unless there are facts to support the same. It has never been contemplated that every prisoner who has lost good time awarded to him may come into court and have a review of the hearing before the Prison Board, as such a procedure would be an undue burden upon the courts.
Petitioner here however, does allege that the Prison Board acted "on supposedly reliable information of an informer." He does not allege that there was not additional information before the Board. It is therefore desirable that this Court before issuing the writ should have some knowledge concerning the information available to the Board when petitioner's good time was forfeited.
(2) The forfeiture of good time is an administrative function and anyone complaining that the forfeiture was granted arbitrarily has a right to appeal to the Attorney General. In Brown v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 370, 372, it was stated:
"With respect to the warden's revocation of good time allowance of which the petitioner complains, it should perhaps be pointed out that under 18 U.S.C., § 711, the Attorney General is given power, on recommendation and evidence submitted to him by the Warden in charge, to restore such portion of lost good time as may be proper."
In the case of Gibson v. United States, 6 Cir., 161 F.2d 973, 974, the above case was cited and the court added:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Marchese
...acts arbitrarily or fraudulently or abuses its authority. Any such finding must be supported by substantial evidence (Lloyd v. Heritage, 199 F.Supp. 46 (N.D.Ga. 1961)), and none was offered or suggested The court is without jurisdiction to entertain a "motion of this sort" under 28 U.S.C. §......
-
Stevens v. Ciccone, 19149-1.
...restored by the Attorney General on that recommendation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4166, Smoake v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 386; Lloyd v. Heritage, 199 F.Supp. 46, N.D.Ga., 1961; Lynch v. United States, 5th Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d The record in this case does not indicate that the petitioner ha......
-
Gilchrist v. United States, 29456 Summary Calendar.
...by the Attorney General on that recommendation, 18 U.S.C.A., § 4166. Smoake v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 386; Lloyd v. Heritage, 199 F.Supp. 46, N.D.Ga., 1961; Lynch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 281. As to appellant's second contention, the double jeopardy provision of......
-
Smoake v. Willingham, 8553.
...as Petitioner here, must first exhaust his administrative remedies by applying to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Lloyd v. Heritage, 199 F.Supp. 46 (D.C.Ga.1961). The Appellant here does not allege nor contend that he has exhausted his administrative procedures or remedies. The Distr......