Uryga v. Ragen

• Decision Date: 02 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 10073.,10073.
• Citation: 181 F.2d 660
• Parties: URYGA v. RAGEN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

181 F.2d 660 (1950)

URYGA v. RAGEN et al.

No. 10073.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

May 2, 1950.

Nathan Wolfberg, Charles Liebman, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Marion J. Hannigan, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Before FINNEGAN, LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.

LINDLEY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, claiming to be a citizen of Poland, instituted this suit in the District Court against the then warden and three prior wardens of the penitentiary and the former director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois,¹ charging them with his false imprisonment. Defendants answered, praying strict proof of the averment of citizenship, denying the charge, and asserting that at all times during his confinement, plaintiff was legally imprisoned. By consent of the parties, the court ordered the trial to proceed in two sections, first, upon the question of whether plaintiff could make proof of his case, and second, in the event the court should find for plaintiff on the first issue, a determination of the amount of plaintiff's damages. In the hearing on the first question, the parties stipulated the facts. Upon conclusion of that trial, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that he had failed to prove a liability against defendants.

Plaintiff was convicted in November, 1927, of burglary and sentenced, pursuant to Illinois law, to an indeterminate period of from one to twenty years. On October 31, 1931, he was paroled. Because of his violation of the terms of his release in various respects, a warrant issued for his arrest as parole violator on November 15, 1932. However, before being apprehended, he was, on February 2, 1933, convicted of grand larceny and committed to the penitentiary for another indeterminate term, — from one to ten years. On April 10, 1933, the authorities declared him a violator of his parole upon his first sentence and continued the case until the minimum sentence under the second conviction had been served. On March 12, 1934, the board denied parole on the first sentence and continued the case.

On June 12, 1935, plaintiff was paroled on both commitments. The state charged that shortly thereafter three inmates of the penitentiary escaped with the connivance or aid of plaintiff, and he was arrested in Chicago in the company of one White, one of the escaped convicts, whom he admitted harboring. On June 12, 1935, a warrant issued, charging him with having violated his parole on both sentences. He was apprehended on July 3, 1935, and returned to the penitentiary.

The record discloses that prior to that time, plaintiff had, in some twelve different instances, violated the rules of the penitentiary and the Department of Public Safety and the laws of Illinois. In view of these facts, on August 5, 1935, the director issued an order revoking all statutory good-time accruing under the two sentences in case of good behavior. The parole board shortly thereafter declared him a violator of his parole under both sentences and passed his case for the maximum of the second sentence. He was discharged upon his second sentence when it had been served in full, in March, 1943, but was retained on the first commitment because of the revocation of his good-time allowance and because of his infractions of rules, regulations and laws, occurring subsequent to his first parole and return to the penitentiary.

On May 4, 1944, the Director of the Department of Public Safety ordered restored to plaintiff certain of his good-time allowance, so that he was discharged from the first sentence on June 12, 1944. Claiming that his sentence had expired on July 3, 1939, plaintiff instituted the suit. The District Court held that the Department acted within its legal powers when it deprived plaintiff of credit for good time, and dismissed the suit.

Under the applicable Illinois statutes, Ill.Rev.Stat.1949, c. 38, § 801 et seq., an indeterminate sentence is a certain definite sentence for the maximum term. People v. Connors, 291 Ill. 614, 126 N.E. 595, affirmed 260 U.S. 695, 43 S.Ct. 11, 67 L.Ed. 468. This was our decision, in view of the Illinois authorities, in United States ex rel. Palmer v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 159 F.2d 356, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 823, 67 S.Ct. 1311, 91 L.Ed. 1839. This maximum term of punishment can be satisfied only by actual, complete service "unless remitted by some legal authority." People ex rel. Ross v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 47 N.E.2d 475, 480; Purdue v. Ragen, 375 Ill. 98, 30 N.E.2d 637. In Illinois, by only two methods may a sentence be legally remitted: (1), by compliance with the conditions of a parole, followed by a discharge duly granted; or, (2), by a pardon or commutation of sentence by the Governor. People ex rel. Ross v. Ragen, 392 Ill. 465, 64 N.E.2d 862. See also People ex rel. Neville v. Ragen, 396 Ill. 565, 72 N.E.2d 175; People ex rel. Barrett v. Dixon, 387 Ill. 420, 56 N.E.2d 816; People ex rel. Barrett v. Crowe, 387 Ill. 53, 55 N. E.2d 84. The provisions of the Sentence and Parole Act do not alter the punishment. People v. Nowasky, 254 Ill. 146, 147, 98 N.E. 242. Consequently, a convict has no right to demand, as a matter of law, that he be discharged before the expiration of his maximum sentence, People v. Connors, 291 Ill. 614, 126 N.E. 595, and that parole authorities may exercise their discretionary power in that respect, delegated to them by the legislature, is likewise clear. People v. Connors, 291 Ill. 614, 126 N.E. 595; People ex rel. Day v. Lewis, 376 Ill. 509, 34 N.E.2d 712; People v. Tyson, 393 Ill. 108, 65 N.E.2d 796. It follows, therefore, that upon his sentences, plaintiff was properly committed to the penitentiary under the indeterminate sentence law for a maximum period of twenty years on the first and ten years on the second conviction, from which he could not, under the authorities quoted, be released or discharged except by pardon by the Governor or by administrative parole proceedings. Inasmuch as no claim is made that he was ever pardoned, plaintiff's claim of wrongful detention must grow out of some arbitrary infraction of their statutory duty by the administrative officials.

Under the pertinent statute, Ill.Rev. Stat.1949, c. 108, § 45, the Department of Public Safety has authority to prescribe rules for diminution of sentences on account of good time. The...