Mabery v. Garrison, No. 74-231-CRT.
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | Ralph L. McMurry, Asst. N. Y. Atty. Gen., New York City, for defendant Ferraro |
| Citation | 405 F. Supp. 134 |
| Parties | Fred MABERY, Plaintiff, v. Sam P. GARRISON, Warden of Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney, Queens County, New York, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. 74-231-CRT. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1975 |
405 F. Supp. 134
Fred MABERY, Plaintiff,
v.
Sam P. GARRISON, Warden of Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney, Queens County, New York, Defendants.
No. 74-231-CRT.
United States District Court, E. D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division.
June 26, 1975.
Fred Mabery, pro se.
Ralph L. McMurry, Asst. N. Y. Atty. Gen., New York City, for defendant Ferraro.
Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., for defendant Garrison.
BUTLER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, Fred Mabery, a state prisoner, has been granted leave to file in forma pauperis a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages. The gravamen of Mabery's complaint is his allegation that he was removed from North Carolina and transported to New York, incommunicado, for trial on New York charges without being afforded procedural due process and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3182 and N.C.G.S. § 148-89 North Carolina's codification of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
FACTS
Mabery was convicted of rape and kidnapping in North Carolina at the October 2, 1972 Session of the Pitt County Superior Court and sentenced to life imprisonment on each charge. However, on September 12, 1972, an indictment was returned in the Supreme Court of the County of Queens, State of New York, charging Fred A. Mabery with the crimes of first degree robbery, second degree kidnapping, second degree grand larceny, and third degree grand larceny. On August 22, 1973, Mabery filed a Motion for a Speedy Trial in the Queens County Supreme Court which the court denied as premature, the District Attorney having advised the court that New York would take steps to bring Mabery into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New York for the purpose of trial. Thereupon, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, of which both the States of North Carolina and New York are members, N.C. G.S. § 148-89 and Section 669-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York, the Assistant District Attorney of the State of New York for the County of Queens completed Form 7 of the Agreement on Detainers and forwarded it, by letter of transmittal dated September 27, 1973, to the Honorable Sam Garrison, Warden of North Carolina Central Prison. On October 31, 1973, Thomas J. Flaherty, Deputy Chief of the Indictment and Investigation Bureau of the Office of the District Attorney of Queens County, forwarded a signed copy of Form V, "Request for Temporary Custody", pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, to James P. Smith, Senior Administrative Assistant in the Department of Social Rehabilitation and Control of the State of North Carolina. By letter dated November 6, 1973, the Honorable James P. Smith, Senior Administrative Assistant of the Department
However, Mabery apparently changed his mind once it became apparent he was to be returned to the State of New York to stand trial on the charges pending in the Supreme Court of Queens County. On November 29, 1973, an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Restraining Order was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. DELAWARE LAW SCH. OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY, Civ. A. No. 85-53.
...statutes confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Federal Courts, they do not confer in personam jurisdiction. See Mabery v. Garrison, 405 F.Supp. 134, 138 (E.D.N.C. 1975). Neither do they authorize national service of process. See Safeguard Insurance Co. v. Maxwell, 53 F.R.D. 116, 117 (E.......
-
Sarratt v. Walker, Civ. A. No. 75-1454.
...transaction constituting the violation occurred. Only the final alternative is applicable here, but it appears sufficient to establish 405 F. Supp. 134 proper venue in the District of South Carolina, since the complaint and accompanying affidavit allege that defendant on two occasions emplo......
-
Martin v. DELAWARE LAW SCH. OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY, Civ. A. No. 85-53.
...statutes confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Federal Courts, they do not confer in personam jurisdiction. See Mabery v. Garrison, 405 F.Supp. 134, 138 (E.D.N.C. 1975). Neither do they authorize national service of process. See Safeguard Insurance Co. v. Maxwell, 53 F.R.D. 116, 117 (E.......
-
Sarratt v. Walker, Civ. A. No. 75-1454.
...transaction constituting the violation occurred. Only the final alternative is applicable here, but it appears sufficient to establish 405 F. Supp. 134 proper venue in the District of South Carolina, since the complaint and accompanying affidavit allege that defendant on two occasions emplo......