Sanders v. Bennett

Decision Date05 March 1945
Docket NumberNo. 8886.,8886.
Citation148 F.2d 19
PartiesSANDERS v. BENNETT, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

ARNOLD, Associate Justice.

The sole question raised on this appeal is whether a court in the District of Columbia has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus against the Attorney General of the United States or his representative on petition of a federal prisoner confined outside the District of Columbia.

By statute all persons convicted of an offense against the United States are committed to the custody of the Attorney General who designates their places of confinement.1 But the Attorney General is not the person directly responsible for the operation of our federal penitentiaries. He is a supervising official rather than a jailer. For that reason, the proper person to be served in the ordinary case is the warden of the penitentiary in which the prisoner is confined rather than an official in Washington, D. C., who supervises the warden. An interpretation which would permit resort to the courts in the District of Columbia for writs of habeas corpus by prisoners in federal institutions all over the United States is without justification either in convenience or logic. For that reason, only courts having jurisdiction over the warden of a penitentiary can grant a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of any of its inmates.2

Since the rule is a practical one based on common sense administration of justice we have held that the courts in the District of Columbia may issue writs of habeas corpus directed to those in direct charge of penal institutions of the District which happen to be located just outside its borders.3 This is because it is the plain duty of the District to adjudicate matters arising out of the conduct of its own institutions.

The order of the court below will, therefore, be affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Nelson v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 20, 2014
    ...the chief officer in charge of the state penal institution is also recognized as the proper named respondent. Rule 2(a), Sanders v. Bennet, 148 F.2d 19 (D.C. Cir. 1945). In Florida, the proper Respondent in this action is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. Thus, the Flo......
  • West v. State of Louisiana
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 5, 1973
    ... ... Wales v. Whitney, 1885, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277; Sanders v. Bennett, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 148 F.2d 19 ...          2 Occasional cases contain dicta to the effect that the failure to name ... ...
  • Ahrens v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1948
    ...§§ 455 and 458; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 1054, 1055, 29 L.Ed. 277; Jones v. Biddle, supra; Sanders v. Bennett, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 148 F.2d 19) and, if not, whether the objection may be waived, as respondent is willing to do. Cf. Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, supra, 323 U......
  • Robledo-Gonzales v. Ashcroft
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 25, 2003
    ...the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 4041 (1982). We have specifically rejected this interpretation. Sanders v. Bennett, 148 F.2d 19, 20 (D.C.Cir.1945). Guerra, 786 F.2d at 416; see also Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 811 (D.C.Cir.1988) ("Thus it should be abundantly cle......
  • 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