Pigg v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 16 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8869.,8869. |
| Citation | 370 F.2d 101 |
| Parties | James C. PIGG, Appellant, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, and Charles Meredith, Superintendent, Colorado State Hospital, Pueblo, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Larry D. Hartzog, of Mosteller, Andrews & Mosburg, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
James W. Creamer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
In 1959, appellant Pigg was tried in the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, on a charge of murder and found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity. Thereupon, pursuant to Colorado statute, Pigg was committed to the Colorado State Hospital at Pueblo. Shortly thereafter, the Superintendent of the State Hospital reported to the Governor that Pigg was so dangerous that he could not be safely confined in that institution. By executive order Pigg was transferred to the Colorado State Penitentiary at Canyon City, where he has since been confined. Claiming restoration to sanity, Pigg has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to obtain his release by resort to mandamus and habeas corpus actions in the state courts. See, Pigg v. Tinsley, Colo., 405 P.2d 687. He now appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Pigg asserts that his transfer to and subsequent confinement in the state penitentiary under C.R.S.1963, § 71-2-4(3),1 constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. We are unable to agree. In Wells, v. Gilig v. Attorney General of the United States, 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 556, 559, we said:
(Citations omitted)
As in a federal or state penal system, the disposition of those adjudicated criminally irresponsible is a matter of administrative determination which the federal courts should not undertake to supervise. Compare, Cannon v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 358 F.2d 719; Stillwell v. Looney, 10 Cir., 207 F.2d 359; Garcia v. Steele, 8 Cir., 193 F.2d 276; Francis v. Lyman, 1 Cir., 216 F.2d 583; United States ex rel. Gapinski v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 268. See, also, 14 Am.Jur. Criminal Law § 56. Sound and practical reasons readily occur in support of the state's designation of the penitentiary as the appropriate place of confinement for those criminally insane who demonstrate dangerous or violent tendencies. Furthermore, we are not aware that one who has been adjudicated in a court of law to be criminally irresponsible, and duly committed thereupon, has a vested right to any particular place of institutionalization. Accordingly, we perceive no valid constitutional objection to Pigg's transfer to and confinement in the state penitentiary. In Ex Parte Brown, 39 Wash. 160, 81 P. 552, 553, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 540, the State Supreme Court spoke on this issue as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Konigsberg v. Ciccone
...D.C., 187 F.Supp. 273; Murray v. United States, 9 Cir., 334 F.2d 616, cert. den. 380 U.S. 917, 85 S.Ct. 906, 13 L.Ed.2d 802; Pigg v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 370 F.2d 101; Stillwell v. Looney, 10 Cir., 207 F.2d 359; Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 S.Ct. It is the Court's view ......
-
Rogers v. State, 15639
...257 F.2d 667; Parker v. People, 108 Colo. 362, 117 P.2d 316, 317; Bartosik v. People, 155 Colo. 219, 393 P.2d 571; Pigg v. Patterson, 370 F.2d 101 (U.S.Ct.App.10th Cir.); Blalock v. Markley, 207 Va. 1003, 154 S.E.2d 158; Ex Parte Clark, 86 Kan. 539, 121 P. While not a case involving the que......
-
Leahy v. Estelle, Civ. A. No. CA-3-7571-D.
...329, 379 F.2d 106 (1967) (habeas corpus is proper remedy for one protests his confinement in a certain place); Pigg v. Patterson, 370 F.2d 101 (10th Cir. 1966) (habeas corpus by unconvicted state prisoner who was transferred from hospital to state penal institution); Lipscomb v. Stevens, 34......
-
Romero v. Schauer
...§ 71-2-4(3) reflects our view as to the constitutionality of the criminal transfer procedures.3 Defendants urge that Pigg v. Patterson, 370 F.2d 101 (10th Cir. 1966) must control our decision on the due process question. To be sure, that case held that the transfer statute in effect at the ......
-
Rule 106 FORMS OF WRITS ABOLISHED.
...court that the defendant is sane. Habeas corpus was an inappropriate form of relief to obtain this certification. Pigg v. Patterson, 370 F.2d 101 (10th Cir. 1966). III. MANDAMUS. Annotator's note. Since section (a)(2) of this rule is similar to § 342 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, w......
-
Wright v. McMann and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
...federal courts, see e.g. Henson v. Welch, 199 F. 2d 367 (4th Cir. 1952); Adams v. Ellis, 197 F. 2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952); Pigg v. Patterson,370 F. 2d 101 (10th Cir. 1966). See generally on this problem: Note: "Beyondthe Ken of the Courts: A Critique of Judicial Refusal to Review the Complaint......