United States v. SUPERINTENDENT, DOWNEY VET. ADMIN. HOSP., 15255.

Citation354 F.2d 635
Decision Date29 December 1965
Docket NumberNo. 15255.,15255.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Robert G. ANTCZAK, Relator-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT, DOWNEY VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, NORTH CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

John E. Juergensmeyer, John F. McGuinn, Elgin, Ill., for appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, John Powers Crowley, Richard A. Makarski, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

MAJOR, Circuit Judge.

This action was instituted in the District Court by Robert G. Antczak, relator, by petition which sought the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed at respondent, Superintendent of Downey Veterans Administration Hospital, located at North Chicago, Illinois. On respondent's motion the Court refused issuance of the Writ and, on May 19, 1965, entered its order of dismissal. From this order relator appeals.

A brief statement of the facts will suffice. On November 20, 1964, the Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois, entered an order predicated upon a jury verdict that relator be committed to the State of Illinois Department of Mental Health, Elgin State Hospital, as a person in need of mental treatment. As a United States military veteran, custody of the relator was subsequently transferred to respondent. From that institution relator by the instant proceeding sought his discharge.

Respondent contends that the District Court was without jurisdiction for failure on the part of relator to show an exhaustion of remedies provided by the State of Illinois, and that the order appealed from should be affirmed for that reason. That such a showing is essential is not open to doubt. See Title 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2254. Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 203, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761; Hughes v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 268 F.2d 864, 866; Gay et al. v. Graham, 10 Cir., 269 F. 2d 482, 485, and Application of Dandridge, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 276, 277.

Relator on brief recognizes the exhaustion of State remedies rule, but seeks to avoid its application here with the statement, "In the present case, clearly the State Courts, although originally committing the Relator, would not entertain a Habeas Corpus Petition for a patient held by Federal authorities in a Federal hospital." We think this is a fallacious contention in view of the Illinois law next discussed.

That the State provides ample procedures for relator to secure judicial determination of his sanity after commitment is not open to doubt. Illinois Revised Statutes 1963, Chap. 91½, Secs. 10-1 through 10-15. Section 10-1 provides in substance that any person who has been admitted to a hospital as in need of mental treatment, or who has been ordered to and remains in the care and custody of some other person or some hospital, may file in the court of the county in which he is hospitalized or otherwise located, or the court of the county from which he was originally hospitalized, a petition setting forth the name of the patient, together with the circumstances surrounding his commitment. Section 10-3 provides for a hearing on such petition. Section 10-5 authorizes the court to determine whether such person is longer in need of care, detention and training for his mental condition and, if not, to enter an order restoring such patient to legal competence. Section 10-13 provides, "Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to deprive any person of the benefit of the Writ of Habeas Corpus." Section 10-15 authorizes the court issuing the Writ to determine whether the patient is in need of further mental treatment and authorizes it to enter an order discharging such person and to transmit a certified copy of such order to the court entering the original order of commitment.

Sections 11-1 through 11-6 of the Illinois Revised...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Gomez v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 14, 1972
    ...that their continued confinement is violative of law have been traditionally required to exhaust. See United States ex rel. Antczak v. Superintendent, 354 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1965) (relator claimed that he was no longer insane); Williams v. Dalton, 231 F.2d 646 (6th Cir. 1956) (section 1983 ......
  • Donovan v. Delgado
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • October 15, 1971
    ...Heinze (9 Cir. 1959), 268 F.2d 864; Gay et al. v. Graham (10 Cir. 1959), 269 F.2d 482; United States ex rel. Antczak v. Superintendent, Downey Veterans Administration Hospital (7 Cir. 1965), 354 F.2d 635. The doctrine requiring exhaustion of state remedies has been applied to applications f......
  • Bilal v. Carroll, Case No. 3:14cv331/MCR/CJK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2015
    ...In the cases petitioner cites - Lee v. Giles, 271 F. Supp. 785 (M.D. Ala. 1967); United States ex rel. Antczak v. Superintendent, Downey Veterans Admin. Hosp., North Chicago, Ill., 354 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1965); and Gidney v. Sterling, 202 F. Supp. 344 (E.D. Ark. 1962) - each petitioner (a v......
  • Lee v. Giles
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • August 4, 1967
    ...259-260, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149." In a Seventh Circuit case decided in 1965, United States ex rel. Antczak v. Superintendent, Downey Veterans Administration Hospital, North Chicago, Illinois, 354 F.2d 635, it was reasoned that since the State of Illinois provided ample procedures for pe......
  • 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