Mercer v. United States Med. Center for Fed. Pris., No. 18256-1.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
Writing for the CourtNorman C. Mercer, pro se
Citation312 F. Supp. 1077
PartiesNorman C. MERCER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES MEDICAL CENTER FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS et al., Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 18256-1.
Decision Date19 May 1970

312 F. Supp. 1077

Norman C. MERCER, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES MEDICAL CENTER FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS et al., Respondents.

No. 18256-1.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

May 19, 1970.


Norman C. Mercer, pro se.

Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.

On April 22, 1970 this Court ordered the petitioner to file an appropriate supplementary pleading in which he should state and allege under oath the specific factual circumstances supporting the conclusory allegations made in his petition for habeas corpus relief filed April 7, 1970. On May 6, 1970, the petitioner filed an "Answer to Court's Order" which, like the initial petition, was quite obviously prepared by another inmate, one Larry V. Cooper, whose now voluminous Civil Action No. 17943-1 currently pends before this Court. Like Mr. Cooper, this petitioner has failed to comply

312 F. Supp. 1078
with the Court's order that his pleading be under oath

The petitioner's principal complaint involves his allegation that despite repeated requests to various prison officials, he has been denied transfer to another federal penal institution.

Section 4082(a) of Title 18, United States Code provides:

A person convicted of an offense against the United States shall be committed, for such term of imprisonment as the court may direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, who shall designate the place of confinement where the sentence shall be served.

It is clear from the decided cases interpreting this section that, in the absence of highly exceptional circumstances (which are neither alleged nor apparent in the case at bar), the designation of the institution in which a lawfully imposed federal sentence shall be served is vested in the Attorney General of the United States, acting through the Bureau of Prisons. See Lawrence v. Willingham, 373 F.2d 731 (10th Cir., 1967); Hogue v. United States, 287 F.2d 99 (5th Cir., 1961); cert. den. 368 U.S. 932, 82 S.Ct. 369, 7 L.Ed.2d 195, reh. den. 368 U.S. 972, 82 S.Ct. 441, 7 L.Ed.2d 402; Peek v. Ciccone, 288 F.Supp. 329, 338 (W.D.Mo.1968).

The same principles apply to the petitioner's allegation that he has wrongfully been denied an assignment to a Community Treatment Center. Discretion to make such an assignment under appropriate circumstances is vested in the Attorney General. See Title 18, United States Code, § 4082(c) and (f).

The petitioner further alleges that he and all other inmates at the Springfield Prison Camp are wrongfully denied (1) cash payments of $100 at the time of their release from custody; (2) work shoes and work clothing (of a type deemed appropriate by the petitioner) at the time of their release from custody; (3) cash loans at the time of their release from custody; (4) opportunity to earn money by working in prison industry; (5) vocational training programs; and (6) work release privileges.

With respect to the first three of these allegations, Sections 4281 and 4284 provide:

§ 4281. Discharge from prison
A person convicted under the laws of the United States shall, upon
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, No. 75 Civ. 6000.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 1977
    ...Clardy v. Levi, 545 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1976); see also 439 F. Supp. 123 Mercer v. United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079-80 (W.D.Mo.1970). Some courts have reviewed actions of prison officials under an "arbitrary and capricious" or "abuse of discretion" ......
  • Coalition for Gov. Procure. v. Fed. Prison, No. 1:99-CV-919.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • August 8, 2001
    ...(1989); Communities, Inc. v. Busey, 956 F.2d 619, 622 (6th Cir.1992). See also Mercer v. United States Medical Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079 (W.D.Mo.1970) ("So long as Federal Prison Industries, Inc., and its board of directors do not administer the authority conferred by ......
  • Lovell v. Arnold, Civ. No. 75-279.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 1975
    ...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 tha......
  • Lutz v. Hemingway, No. 03-10258.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • March 5, 2007
    ...of confinement that cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding. See e.g. Mercer v. U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079 (W.D.Mo.1970) (claim that federal prisoner was denied an opportunity to earn money by working in prison industry or to participate in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, No. 75 Civ. 6000.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 1977
    ...Clardy v. Levi, 545 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1976); see also 439 F. Supp. 123 Mercer v. United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079-80 (W.D.Mo.1970). Some courts have reviewed actions of prison officials under an "arbitrary and capricious" or "abuse of discretion" ......
  • Coalition for Gov. Procure. v. Fed. Prison, No. 1:99-CV-919.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • August 8, 2001
    ...(1989); Communities, Inc. v. Busey, 956 F.2d 619, 622 (6th Cir.1992). See also Mercer v. United States Medical Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079 (W.D.Mo.1970) ("So long as Federal Prison Industries, Inc., and its board of directors do not administer the authority conferred by ......
  • Lovell v. Arnold, Civ. No. 75-279.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 13, 1975
    ...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 tha......
  • Lutz v. Hemingway, No. 03-10258.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • March 5, 2007
    ...of confinement that cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding. See e.g. Mercer v. U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, 312 F.Supp. 1077, 1079 (W.D.Mo.1970) (claim that federal prisoner was denied an opportunity to earn money by working in prison industry or to participate in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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