White v. Clemmer
Decision Date | 01 June 1961 |
Docket Number | 16144.,No. 16143,16143 |
Citation | 111 US App. DC 145,295 F.2d 132 |
Parties | James C. WHITE, Appellant v. Donald L. CLEMMER, Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al., Appellees. James H. CHILDS, Appellant v. Donald L. CLEMMER, Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appellants filed a brief pro se, and their cases were treated as submitted thereon.
Mr. Ted D. Kuemmerling, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, submitted on the brief, for appellees.
Before Mr. Justice BURTON, retired,* and DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied August 8, 1961.
Appellants separately sought to "mandamus" appellee Clemmer who is Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. Named additionally were the appellees Pegelow and Knupp, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, respectively, of the Lorton Reformatory maintained at Lorton, Virginia, by the District of Columbia. Not named as parties were the Commissioners or any of them. The complaints were consolidated, and after consideration of appellees' motion to dismiss, both were dismissed without prejudice by the District Judge. His memorandum opinion pointed out that the appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and to join necessary parties. Appellants without having taken the steps implicitly suggested in the memorandum of the District Judge, have brought this appeal here. We are of the view for the reasons to be stated that the order must be affirmed.
D.C.Code § 24-442 (1951) provides that the Department of Corrections shall be conducted under the general direction and supervision of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia who "shall have charge of the management and regulation" of the Reformatory at Lorton, and "be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed" to the Reformatory at Lorton.1
Appellants have not contested the legality of their detention. Rather, it is clear, they complain in conclusionary fashion of various aspects of prison administration largely having to do with the granting or withdrawal of certain claimed privileges, a not unusual concomitant of their status. Cf. Price v. Johnston, 1948, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356. They have asked the court to act in a field which has been committed to the discretion of the Commissioners.2
We deem it clear that a remedy in the nature of mandamus is not available. The principles which should govern were summarized by this court in Hammond v. Hull, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 303, 131 F.2d 23, 25, certiorari denied 1943, 318 U.S. 777, 63 S.Ct. 830, 87 L.Ed. 1145, as follows:
Consideration of the allegations of record in light of the foregoing demonstrates that appellants have failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be afforded. Cf. Prince v. Klune, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 148 F.2d 18.
Affirmed.
Filed Aug. 8, 1961.
The sitting division, sua sponte, desires to dispel a misapprehension which has appeared in memoranda filed in connection with appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. This court did not hold that the District Commissioners are, or should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fulwood v. Clemmer
...the court granted a petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. No reasons were set forth for either ruling. In White v. Clemmer, 111 U.S. App.D.C. ____, 295 F.2d 132, we pointed out that a remedy in the nature of mandamus is not available in the absence of specific allegations sufficie......
-
Childs v. Pegelow, 8948-8950.
...1953, August 12, 1954, May 17, 1956, and July 14, 1960. 2 See Roberts v. Pegelow, 313 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1963); White v. Clemmer, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 295 F.2d 132 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 992, 82 S.Ct. 611, 7 L.Ed.2d 529 (1962); Haskins v. United States, 292 F.2d 265 (4th Cir. 1961);......
-
Roberts v. Pegelow, 8606
...206 F.Supp. 370. 4 Later he was found to be psychotic. Indeed, he is now confined in St. Elizabeths Hospital. 5 See White v. Clemmer, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 295 F.2d 132; Haskins v. United States, 4 Cir., 292 F.2d 265; Sewell v. Pegelow, 4 Cir., 291 F.2d 196; Tabor v. Hardwick, 5 Cir., 224 F......
-
Fulwood v. Clemmer
...pp. 183-186. 21 18 U.S.C.A. § 4042; Dist. of Col. Code, 24-402 and 24-442. 21a 72 C.J.S. Prisons § 18c, p. 873. 21b White v. Clemmer, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 295 F.2d 132. 21c In re Ferguson, 55 Cal.2d 663, 12 Cal. Rptr. 753, 361 P.2d 417, 424 and 425, cert. denied Ferguson v. Heinze, 368 U.S......