Robinson v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 10888.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 10888. |
| Parties | Thomas Henry ROBINSON, Jr. v. Honorable Ramsey CLARK, Attorney General, and Myrl E. Alexander, Director, Bureau of Federal Prisons (and their authorized representatives). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Thomas P. Gresham, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
This petition for relief was brought against the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons by a federal prisoner serving a life sentence. It raises an interesting question concerning the proper construction of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4161 and 4162. Both of these sections relate to "good time" allowances to prisoners, the first dealing with "good time" allowances in general, and the second with "good time" allowances for service in a prison industry. The first, Section 4161, expressly provides that it applies only to prisoners serving a "definite term other than for life", whereas the second, Section 4162, says that industrial good time shall be in addition to general good time and "under the same terms and conditions and without regard to length of sentence."
Section 4165 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. provides for the forfeiture of good time for the commission of any offense or the violation of the rules of the institution, and a rule of the Parole Board provides that a prisoner will not be considered for parole, irrespective of other considerations, during such period as his good time may be in forfeiture.
The facts of this case come about in this fashion: the prisoner has now served sufficient time to be eligible for parole consideration; but in the meantime, the prison officials had first accrued, and then forfeited, an award of industrial good time in his favor, and because of this forfeiture, the parole officials now refuse to consider his case.
The contention of the prisoner is quite simple: he says that, being a lifer, he was never entitled to any good time, industrial or otherwise, and that by purporting to give and then take away something he was never entitled to, the prison authorities have deprived him of something he was entitled to, viz.: parole consideration.
The court agrees. It is difficult for the court to see how "good time" can ever apply to or be of any benefit to a person serving a life sentence. How can it ever be computed? The Government argues that his sentence may sometime be commuted to a term of years, at which time he could then claim it, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Jenkins
...a certain crime is so dangerous that he must be kept in prison the remainder of his life. As stated by the court in Robinson v. Clark (N.D.Ga.1967) 278 F.Supp. 559 at 560: "It is difficult for the court to see how 'good time' can ever apply to or be of any benefit to a person serving a life......
-
Union Carbide Corporation v. Filtrol Corporation
... ... referred to as "Mobil") for an Order modifying certain Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b) protective Orders previously entered by the Court in this action ... ...
-
Ramirez v. Turner, 90-1818
...for five years for an individual who committed his offense prior to November 1, 1987. Pub.L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2027); Robinson v. Clark, 278 F.Supp. 559 (D.C.Ga.1967). In any event, the district court accepted the finding of the magistrate judge that Ramirez was not deprived of any statutory......
-
Glascoe v. U.S.
...111 Nev. 1284, 903 P.2d 826 (1995); Escalanti v. Dep't of Corr., 174 Ariz. 526, 851 P.2d 151, 153 (Ct.App.1993); Robinson v. Clark, 278 F.Supp. 559, 560 (N.D.Ga.1967). The rule of lenity, from which petitioners seek support for their interpretation of § 24-428, cannot assist them in view of......