McNeal v. Taylor, Civ. No. 70-229.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 70-229. |
| Citation | 313 F. Supp. 200 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | Randolph McNEAL, Petitioner, v. Jack F. TAYLOR, Senior Officer At El Reno Reformatory, Respondent. |
Randolph McNeal, pro se.
William R. Burkett, U. S. Atty., John E. Green, Asst. U. S. Atty., W. D. Oklahoma, for respondent.
The petitioner is presently confined to the United States Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. He does not challenge the validity of the sentence which he is serving. He seeks rather relief from alleged "cruel and unusual punishment". The filing is styled "Writ of Habeas Corpus" and also as "Injunction for Relief".
Habeas Corpus is inappropriate herein. Untutored inmates of correctional institutions are usually unlearned in legal niceties and if one presents in his own behalf a serious filing he should not fail because he misconceives the nature of the proceeding or mislabels his petition. The Court has a discretionary right to consider the pleading despite the fact that the petitioner has mistakenly designated it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Roberts v. Pegelow, (CA 4, 1963) 313 F.2d 548.
The filing herein alleges that petitioner is receiving "both mental and physical, cruel and unusual punishment" in that he was "taken from population for no reason," called such names as "nigger" and "punk", the officer kicked him and placed him on segregation, petitioner is "only given two showers a week," is denied treatment by the medical staff for the "after effect" of an earlier operation and the case worker refuses to consider petitioner's application that he be transferred to another institution located closer to his family. He alleges also that the food isn't edible.
Habeas corpus fails herein for two reasons. First, the Federal Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma, wherein petitioner is confined, is a part of the prison and correctional system of the United States. It is under the administration and supervision of the Attorney General of the United States. It is expressly made so by the statutes of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 4001. The Courts have no supervisory jurisdiction over the conduct of the institutions provided by law for the confinement and treatment of federal prisoners committed to the custody of the Attorney General.
Second, the Court may release on habeas corpus only a prisoner who is shown to be illegally detained.
The filing herein contains no allegation of illegal detention. In Powell v. Hunter, (CA 10, 1949) 172 F.2d 330, Chief Judge Phillips said:
The prison system is under the administration of the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C.A. § 741 now § 4001 and not of the district courts. The court has no power to interfere with the conduct of the prison or its discipline. It may discharge upon habeas corpus only where the petitioner is illegally detained.
Like holdings in other Circuits are: Sarshik v. Sanford, (CA 5, 1947) 142 F.2d 676; Henson v. Welch, (CA 4, 1952) 199 F.2d 367; Williams v. Steele, (CA 8, 1952) 194 F.2d 32. The cases uniformly hold that writ of habeas corpus may not be used to treat the question of a prisoner's subjection to cruel and unusual punishment or any other aspect of his treatment while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bijeol v. Benson, TH 75-24-C.
...882 (5th Cir. 1970); Vida v. Cage, 385 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1967); Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966); McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.Okl.1970); Murphy v. Surgeon General, 269 F.Supp. 227 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4001 and § 4042, the Bureau of Prisons is delegated prim......
-
Payne v. Day, CIV-77-0300-D.
...available to him. Mower v. Swyhart, 545 F.2d 103 (CA10 1976); Rivera v. Toft, 477 F.2d 534 (CA10 1973). See also McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.Okl.1970); Owens v. Alldridge, 311 F.Supp. 667 (W.D.Okl.1970); Harbolt v. Alldredge, 311 F.Supp. 688 (W.D.Okl.1970). Under the circumstance......
-
Rivera v. Toft, 72-1785.
...713. See also Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966); Evans v. Harris, 341 F.Supp. 609 (D.Kan.1972); McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.Okl.1970); Harbolt v. Alldredge, 311 F.Supp. 688 (W. D.Okl.1970), aff'd, 432 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1970); Owens v. Alldridge, 311 F. Supp. 6......
-
Douglas v. US Attorney General, Civ. No. 75-0723-D.
...667 (W.D.Okla.1970); Harbolt v. Alldredge, 311 F.Supp. 688 (W.D.Okla.1970), affmd. 432 F.2d 441 (CA10 1970). In McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200, 202 (W.D.Okla.1970) the court "The filing herein contains no reference to any effort to get administrative relief through the Attorney General o......