Waldon v. State of Iowa
| Decision Date | 24 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17477.,17477. |
| Citation | 323 F.2d 852 |
| Parties | Calvin L. WALDON, Appellant, v. The STATE OF IOWA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Evan L. Hultman, Atty. Gen., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
The District Court refused appellant leave to file a suit for a declaratory judgment in forma pauperis and thus in effect made denial of his complaint. Reversal is sought of the Court's order.
Appellant is an inmate of the Iowa State Penitentiary. He sought, by his declaratory judgment suit, to have it decreed that the State of Iowa had fraudulently deprived him of an appeal from his conviction and sentence and thereby violated his constitutional rights, and that he was in consequence entitled "to post-conviction judicial remedy in the form of criminal appeal".
A state prisoner is not entitled to seek a declaratory determination from the federal courts under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 as to the validity of the judgment on which he is confined. If the restraint in which he is held is constitutionally invalid, the federal courts have the power to release him therefrom in habeas corpus, after exhaustion by him of such state remedies as are available to him. He cannot resort to a federal declaratory judgment suit in an effort to escape having to exhaust available state remedies and to circumvent the intent manifested by Congress in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 that the state courts are to be given "the opportunity to pass upon and correct errors of federal law in the state prisoner's conviction", Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 438, 83 S.Ct. 822, 848, 9 L.Ed.2d 837.
Further, any declaratory decree that the judgment here involved was invalid, because appellant had improperly been deprived of an appeal, would be in fact a review of the judgment and in effect a revision of it, since its adjudicatory reach is against the judgment itself.
In the extreme sensitiveness of this area of federal-state relationship, there must be kept in mind what was emphasized in Fay v. Noia, supra, in its discussion of habeas corpus jurisdiction, that the power which it was intended a federal district court should have in respect to state prisoners was that of acting as to the restraint involved and not of dealing with the judgment existing. "Indeed, it federal district court has no other power; it cannot revise the state court judgment; it can only act on the body of the petitioner". 372 U.S. at 431, 83 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Garrison, Civ. A. No. 68-1063.
...appeal or habeas corpus. A good statement of this general rule was given by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Waldon v. State of Iowa, 323 F.2d 852, 853 (8th Cir., 1963): "A state prisoner is not entitled to seek a declaratory determination from the federal courts under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2......
-
Hill v. Nelson
...of any authority which would permit the Federal Declaratory Judgment Statutes to be used as a post-conviction remedy. In Waldon v. State, 323 F.2d 852 (8th Cir. 1963) per curiam, the Court held that a state prisoner is not entitled to seek a declaratory determination from the federal courts......
-
Booker v. State of Arkansas
...have refused to use federal declaratory judgment procedure as a means of attack upon a state criminal judgment. Waldon v. State of Iowa, 323 F.2d 852 (8 Cir. 1963); Christopher v. State of Iowa, 324 F.2d 180 (8 Cir. 1963); United States ex rel. Bennett v. People of State of Illinois, 356 F.......
-
Grayson v. Montgomery
...412 F.2d 778 (1st Cir.1969), Johnson v. Walker, 317 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1963), or as suits for declaratory judgments. Waldon v. Iowa, 323 F.2d 852 (8th Cir.1963). Plaintiff maintains that no exhaustion should be required in this case because the remedy he seeks is not release from custody, b......