Washington v. Byington
| Decision Date | 28 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. TH 60-C-24.,TH 60-C-24. |
| Citation | 182 F. Supp. 54 |
| Parties | George W. WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. D. M. BYINGTON, Warden, and U. S. Attorney General, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
George W. Washington, pro se.
Don A. Tabbert, U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
This cause is before the court upon the application of petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner alleges that he was originally sentenced to serve two years by a federal court, but was paroled after serving eight months and seventeen days. Thereafter, while on parole, he was charged, and pleaded guilty to a narcotic offense in an Ohio state court. After serving the latter sentence (five years) in the Ohio State Reformatory, petitioner alleges that he was released into the custody of the United States pursuant to a detainer for parole violation. Petitioner is presently confined at the Terre Haute, Indiana, federal prison serving the remainder of the original federal sentence.
Petitioner contends that the United States relinquished jurisdiction over him when federal authorities permitted the imposition and execution of the second sentence by the Ohio state court, and consequently that his present detention by respondents is unlawful. Such is not the law. Morneau v. United States Board of Parole, 8 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 829, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 972, 76 S.Ct. 1037, 100 L.Ed. 1490; Jenkins v. Madigan, 7 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 904; Myers v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 662. As stated in Myers v. Hunter, supra, at page 663:
"* * *
Thus, the petition shows on its face that petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, and it would be an idle ceremony to issue an order to the respondents to show cause why the writ should not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Reilly v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 632, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 790, 67 S.Ct. 353, 91...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Maris v. United States
...Petitioner's claim that he is being unlawfully held in the custody of the respondents is wholly without merit. Washington v. Byington, D.C.S.D.Ind. 1960, 182 F.Supp. 54. The petition in that case was virtually a carbon copy of the petition now before the court. Holding that the argument pre......
-
United States v. Bloombaum
...208 F.2d 102 (1953); Mitchell v. Boen, 10 Cir., 194 F.2d 405 (1952); Vanover v. Cox, 8 Cir., 136 F.2d 442 (1943); Washington v. Byington, S.D.Ind., 182 F. Supp. 54 (1960); Wing v. Stewart, W.D. Mo., 77 F.Supp. 257 Finally, petitioner contends that the federal authorities unlawfully removed ......
-
Jutras v. United States, 6433.
...ex rel. Demarois v. Farrell, 8 Cir., 1937, 87 F.2d 957, 962, cert. den. 302 U.S. 683, 58 S.Ct. 31, 82 L.Ed. 527; Washington v. Byington, D.C.S.D.Ind., 1960, 182 F.Supp. 54. Cf. United States ex rel. Pavloc v. President of Pa. Bd. of Parole, 3 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 780, aff'g on the opinion o......