McNair v. McCune, 74--1471
| Decision Date | 20 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1471,74--1471 |
| Citation | 527 F.2d 874 |
| Parties | Noah Carl McNAIR, Appellant, v. G. R. McCUNE, Warden, Federal Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, S.C. (third-year law student), Randall T. Bell, Columbia, S.C. (court-appointed counsel), (Katherine W. Hill, on brief), for appellant.
Michael A. Rhine, Asst. U.S. Atty. (William B. Cummings, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
On February 13, 1974, petitioner McNair's complaint and petition to proceed in forma pauperis was notarized at the Petersburg Reformatory. On March 20, 1974, the district judge wrote to the warden at Petersburg requesting information concerning petitioner's allegations. The warden responded by letter of March 26. On April 4, 1974, the district judge entered an order permitting petitioner's complaint to be filed and, sua sponte, dismissing it 'because on its face the complaint does not show constitutional deprivation over which this court had jurisdiction, . . ..' We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Because the facts have not been ascertained, we are compelled to assume the truth of the complaint, and because it was prepared pro se, to construe it liberally. So read, it is a sufficient statement of federal jurisdiction in habeas corpus to redress punitive segregation imposed without a hearing for the relatively innocuous offense of 'wearing the wrong kind of clothing.' Moreover, there is an allegation that the petitioner is being denied 'legal effects,' which may or may not mean necessary materials to obtain access to the courts.
We hold there is federal habeas corpus jurisdiction over the complaint of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity of his original conviction, but the imposition of segregated confinement without elementary procedural due process and without just cause. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1). See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); Williams v. Richardson, 481 F.2d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 1973); Mead v. Parker, 464 F.2d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 1972). On remand the district court will reinstate the complaint, issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, and proceed to summarily hear and determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almeida v. Barr, CASE NO. C20-0490RSM-MLP
..., 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008) ; Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 432 F.3d 235, 242 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2005) ; McNair v. McCune , 527 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir. 1975) ; Adams v. Bradshaw , 644 F.3d 481, 482 83 (6th Cir. 2011) ). The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided the issue. See Nettles v......
-
Aamer ex rel. Aamer v. Obama
...Eighth Amendment challenge to the state of Ohio's lethal injection procedures could be brought in habeas); cf. McNair v. McCune, 527 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir.1975) (“[I]t is a sufficient statement of federal jurisdiction in habeas corpus to redress punitive segregation imposed without a heari......
-
Swain v. Junior
..., 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008) ; Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 432 F.3d 235, 242 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2005) ; McNair v. McCune , 527 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir. 1975) ; Adams v. Bradshaw , 644 F.3d 481, 482-83 (6th Cir. 2011) ).Second, the precedent cited above may not be as clear cut as De......
-
Fields v. Attorney General of State of Md.
...Fields' petition is sufficient, for we appropriately interpret the efforts of a pro se petitioner liberally. See, e.g., McNair v. McCune, 527 F.2d 874 (4th Cir.1975); Ham v. North Carolina, 471 F.2d 406 (4th Cir.1973).21 Fields made this comment in response to his attorney's question, "You ......