Winford v. Wilkinson

• Decision Date: 12 September 1968
• Docket Number: No. 1333.,1333.
• Parties: Merle R. WINFORD, Petitioner, v. Fred T. WILKINSON, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Harold R. Swenson, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

288 F. Supp. 916

Merle R. WINFORD, Petitioner, v. Fred T. WILKINSON, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Harold R. Swenson, Warden, Respondent.

No. 1333.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, C. D.

September 12, 1968.

Merle R. Winford, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.

Petitioner has tendered for filing in forma pauperis what he has labeled a "Petition for a writ of injunction and a petition for * * * a Damage Suit." That tendered pleading alleges various complaints about treatment at the Missouri State Penitentiary which are substantially identical to the allegations made earlier in the petition filed in Winford v. Wilkinson, et al., No. 1333 (W.D.Mo., 1968), 288 F.Supp. 1.

Petitioner's present complaint seeks in part to obtain his removal from the maximum security unit to the general prison population. That portion of petitioner's complaint must be treated as an attempt to invoke the habeas corpus jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner does not allege that he has exhausted available state court remedies.

There are no Missouri cases which deal directly with the question of whether an inmate of a state prison under a valid commitment may invoke habeas corpus to obtain relief from allegedly improper confinement in a maximum security unit of the penitentiary. We must recognize, however, that the Missouri courts have traditionally given the scope of state habeas corpus jurisdiction a broad construction. See, for examples, State ex rel. Barker v. Wurdeman (1914) 254 Mo. 561, 163 S.W. 849; and State v. Gray (Mo.Sup.1966) 406 S. W.2d 580. The courts of other states (see Annotation: 155 A.L.R. 145 and Supplements) and the federal courts (see, for example, Harris v. Settle (8th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 908) have recognized that, under exceptional circumstances, an inmate of a correctional institution may test the legality of his confinement within a particular place inside the institution. See also Cagle v. Ciccone, W.D.Mo.1968, No. 17024-3, 289 F.Supp. 857. It is therefore not unlikely that the courts of Missouri would, in a proper case, exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction if invoked by inmates such as petitioner who allege improper confinement in the maximum security unit of the Missouri penitentiary.

Appropriate regard for state and federal relations requires that any doubt about the scope of state habeas corpus jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of state power until the state courts decide otherwise. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis in regard to that portion of petitioner's complaint that seeks to invoke federal habeas corpus jurisdiction must be denied because petitioner has not alleged that he has exhausted his apparent state court remedy of habeas corpus.

Petitioner also attempts to invoke federal jurisdiction under Section 1343 of Title 28, United States Code, and Sections 1983 and 1985 of Title 42, United States Code.

On page 10 of his new petition he alleged generally that "Petitioner has exhausted all Grievance Procedures that are available within the prison. * * " He also wrote above the caption of his petition the words "Exhaustion of Grievance Procedure Remedy."

The order of this Court of July 16, 1968 in petitioner's initial action (No. 1333) required that "any new or amended complaint presented for filing shall state with particularity the steps taken by the particular plaintiff to obtain an appropriate...