Potter v. Ciccone
Decision Date | 24 June 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 18263-3. |
Citation | 316 F. Supp. 703 |
Parties | Larry G. POTTER, Petitioner, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
J. Martin Kerr, UMKC Legal Assistance Program, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
In petitioner's prior petition for habeas corpus, Potter v. Ciccone (W.D.Mo.) Civil Action No. 18184-3, he complained that he was placed in the Kankakee, Illinois, jail without cause and retained there for an unreasonable time without medical treatment. Since petitioner did not thereby state any denial of his federally protected rights by the respondent (the Director of the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners), the petition was denied on March 23, 1970, without prejudice to any remedies which petitioner might have under the Federal Civil Rights Act, Sections 1981-88, Title 42, United States Code, or conceivably under Section 2255, Title 28, United States Code, to challenge his federal conviction in the committing court upon these grounds.
On March 20, 1970, a letter from petitioner dated March 18, 1970, was received in this division. In pertinent part, it stated:
(sic)
Since, if read liberally, in the light of the command of the United States Supreme Court in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, the petition might thereby have stated the denial of one or more of petitioner's federally protected rights, the letter of March 20, 1970, was treated as a successive petition for habeas corpus, petitioner was granted leave to file it in forma pauperis, and respondent was ordered to show cause within 20 days why the writ of habeas corpus should not issue, granting the relief prayed by petitioner. After an extension of time was granted by the Court, respondent's response to the show cause order was filed on May 13, 1970. Therein, respondent averred that "petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 5010(b) and 5017(c), upon his plea of guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Dyer Act)"; that "on June 27, 1967, petitioner was released on parole from the Community Treatment Center (CTC) at Chicago, Illinois, with supervision until March 28, 1971"; that "on February 15, 1968, a parole violator warrant was issued against petitioner * * *, the parole violator warrant was executed, and petitioner was committed to the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan on March 28, 1968"; that "on August 7, 1969, petitioner was transferred to the Community Treatment Center at Chicago, Illinois"; that "on September 15, 1969, petitioner absconded from the Chicago Community Treatment Center"; that "on or about November 17, 1969, petitioner was arrested by the police in Kankakee, Illinois on a burglary charge and was confined in the Kankakee Jail"; that "in February of 1970, the Illinois State charges against petitioner were dismissed, and he was placed in a mental institution in that State"; that "on February 6, 1970, petitioner was taken into federal custody as an escaped federal prisoner, and that on February 12, 1970, petitioner was transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana"; that "on March 4, 1970 petitioner was received at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri from the Federal institution at Terre Haute"; and that "computed uninterruptedly from the date of his conviction on March 29, 1965 in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 5017(d)," petitioner's sentence "expires at full term on March 28, 1971." Respondent therefore contended that petitioner was in lawful custody.
On May 18, 1970, the Court entered its order expressly inviting petitioner to file a traverse to the response within 10 days, in which traverse petitioner should admit or deny the factual allegations of the response. Petitioner submitted his letter dated May 18, 1970, which he requested be accepted as a "legal traverse" and which was accordingly filed herein on May 22, 1970. That letter as written is as follows:
Petitioner also forwarded a letter which had been written to him by Michael R. Berz, attorney at law in Kankakee, Illinois, which expressed his "shock" at hearing "that the authorities have disregarded Judge Cardosi's court order and interrupted your treatment." Thereafter, petitioner obtained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowman v. Wilson
...F.2d 37, 38 (10th Cir. 1969) (per curiam); United States ex rel. Brewer v. Maroney, 315 F.2d 687, 688 (3d Cir. 1963); Potter v. Ciccone, 316 F.Supp. 703, 706 (W.D.Mo.1970).19 The district court relied on orders of attachment and return which were issued pursuant to D.C.Code § 24-301(i). The......
-
Bowman v. Wilson
...denied, 406 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 1796, 32 L.Ed.2d 127 (1972), United States v. Maroney, 315 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1963), and Potter v. Ciccone, 316 F.Supp. 703 (W.D.Mo.1970) for the proposition that the exercise of jurisdiction over a prisoner who has violated the law of more than one sovereign i......
-
Lovell v. Arnold
...solely a question of comity not subject to attack by the prisoner, United States v. Vann, E.D.N.Y.1962, 207 F.Supp. 108; Potter v. Ciccone, W.D.Mo.1970, 316 F.Supp. 703; United States v. Bloombaum, D. Md.1966, 261 F.Supp. 814; United States v. Gladding, S.D.N.Y.1966, 265 F.Supp. 850; Truesd......
-
Transportation of Federal Prisoners to State Courts Pursuant to Writs of Habeas Corpus
... ... lose jurisdiction over Chunn by complying with an Alabama ... writ. 451 F.2d at 1006. [ 2 ] Similarly, in Potter v ... Ciccone, 316 F.Supp. 703, 705 (W.D. Mo. 1970), the court ... stated the "well-established" rule that the federal ... government does not ... ...