Lovell v. Arnold, Civ. No. 75-279.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtSHERIDAN
Citation391 F. Supp. 1047
Decision Date13 March 1975
Docket NumberCiv. No. 75-279.
PartiesRev. Dr. Frank D. LOVELL, Petitioner, v. Floyd E. ARNOLD, Warden and Common-wealth of Mass., charging authorities, Respondents.

391 F. Supp. 1047

Rev. Dr. Frank D. LOVELL, Petitioner,
v.
Floyd E. ARNOLD, Warden and Common-wealth of Mass., charging authorities, Respondents.

Civ. No. 75-279.

United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

March 13, 1975.


391 F. Supp. 1048

Rev. Dr. Frank D. Lovell, pro se.

SHERIDAN, Chief Judge.

Petitioner, Rev. Dr. Frank D. Lovell, presently an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, has filed, in forma pauperis, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he requests the court: (1) to order certain state criminal charges dismissed on the ground that the state indictments subject him to double jeopardy because his federal conviction is for the same offense, and on the ground the state of Massachusetts has denied him a speedy trial on the criminal charges; and (2) to prohibit the warden at Lewisburg from turning him over to the Massachusetts authorities for prosecution on the state charges on the ground that the state indictments should be dismissed for the aforementioned reasons and on the ground that the state authorities have failed to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

In our "dual sovereignty" system, neither a conviction nor an acquittal in a federal court bars prosecution in state court for the same acts, since an act denounced as a crime by both federal and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and hence may be punished by each; thus one may be tried and punished by both the federal and state governments for the same act. Bartkus v. Illinois, 1959, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684; Abbate v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed. 2d 729; United States v. Lanza, 1922, 260 U.S. 377, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314; United States v. Vaughan, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 1096; United States v. Smaldone, 10 Cir. 1973, 485 F.2d 1333, 1343; Martin v. Rose, 6 Cir. 1973, 481 F.2d 658; see Waller v. Florida, 1970, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435. Thus petitioner's double jeopardy argument is wholly without merit.

The place of a federal prisoner's confinement is vested in the discretion of the Attorney General or his authorized delegate, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4082; Moore v. United States Attorney General, 5 Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 1375; Thogmartin v. Moseley, D.Kan.1969, 313 F. Supp. 158, aff'd 10 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 1178, cert. denied, 1970, 400 U.S. 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 comity not subject to attack by the prisoner, United States v. Vann,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Ramsey v. United States, No. 76 C 3651.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • April 17, 1978
    ...civil rights cases or actions by state or federal prisoners seeking collateral review of their convictions. See also Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047 (M.D.Pa.1975) state inmate's in forma pauperis habeas corpus petition dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Although Chie......
  • Transportation of Federal Prisoners to State Courts Pursuant to Writs of Habeas Corpus, 80-92
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • July 25, 1980
    ...v. United States, 400 F.2d 859, 860 (8th Cir. 1968); Murray v. United States, 334 F.2d 616, 617 (9th Cir. 1964); Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047, 1048 (M.D. Pa. 1975); United States ex rel. Williams v. Fitzpatrick, 299 F.Supp. 260, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). [ 721] As noted in both your opinio......
  • Sheffey v. Greer, Civ. No. 73-269-E.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • March 25, 1975
    ...state and actionable, if at all, in the state courts," Cole v. Smith, 344 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1965). The general standard is that 391 F. Supp. 1047 only in exceptional circumstances will a federal court interfere with matters that involve the internal management of a state prison, Butle......
  • Johnson v. Cuyler, Civ. A. No. 80-4311.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 1, 1982
    ...U.S. 391, 438 83 S.Ct. 822, 848, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)). Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155 at 157 (3d Cir. 1982). See also, Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047 So long as his appeal is pending in the New Jersey Supreme Court, comity requires that a determination be made by it. Unless extended del......
4 cases
  • Ramsey v. United States, No. 76 C 3651.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • April 17, 1978
    ...civil rights cases or actions by state or federal prisoners seeking collateral review of their convictions. See also Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047 (M.D.Pa.1975) state inmate's in forma pauperis habeas corpus petition dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Although Chie......
  • Transportation of Federal Prisoners to State Courts Pursuant to Writs of Habeas Corpus, 80-92
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • July 25, 1980
    ...v. United States, 400 F.2d 859, 860 (8th Cir. 1968); Murray v. United States, 334 F.2d 616, 617 (9th Cir. 1964); Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047, 1048 (M.D. Pa. 1975); United States ex rel. Williams v. Fitzpatrick, 299 F.Supp. 260, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). [ 721] As noted in both your opinio......
  • Sheffey v. Greer, Civ. No. 73-269-E.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • March 25, 1975
    ...state and actionable, if at all, in the state courts," Cole v. Smith, 344 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1965). The general standard is that 391 F. Supp. 1047 only in exceptional circumstances will a federal court interfere with matters that involve the internal management of a state prison, Butle......
  • Johnson v. Cuyler, Civ. A. No. 80-4311.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 1, 1982
    ...U.S. 391, 438 83 S.Ct. 822, 848, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)). Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155 at 157 (3d Cir. 1982). See also, Lovell v. Arnold, 391 F.Supp. 1047 So long as his appeal is pending in the New Jersey Supreme Court, comity requires that a determination be made by it. Unless extended del......

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