Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

131 F.2d 853

Docket No. 12334.

Jones v. Biddle

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 14, 1942.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1942-12-14

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“§ 2244. Finality of determination ****** (b) When after an evidentiary hearing on the merits of a material factual issue, or after a hearing on the merits of an issue of law, a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court has been denied by a court of the United States or a justice or judge of the United States release from custody or other remedy on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of such person need not be entertained by a court of the United States or a justice or judge of the United States unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for the writ, and unless the court, justice, or judge is satisfied that the applicant has not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Johnson v. Florida

““The statutes relating to habeas corpus manifestly contemplate that the respondent named in an application for habeas corpus shall be the person, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, who has the physical custody of the person of the petitioner and who is capable of producing him in court. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 , 5 S.Ct. 1050 , 29 L.Ed. 277 ; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 301 , 100 F.2d 717, 718 . The power of a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus is limited to its territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 452 ; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230, 233 ; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 307 , 100 F.2d 717 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lewis v. Connett

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 452 · 28 U.S.C. § 454 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 28 U.S.C. § 456 · 28 U.S.C. § 458

Relies on Ponzi v. Fessenden · Wales v. Whitney · Sanders v. Allen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1942-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2004 · most notably Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. (2004), Ahrens v. Clark (1948)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

1201942195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph E. Jones, pro se.

¶2Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before STONE, SANBORN, and RID-DICK, Circuit Judges.

¶4*854SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

¶5The appellant (who will be referred to as petitioner) filed an application .for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below, naming Hon. Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the United States, as respondent. Petitioner is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. His application, in substance, asserts that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty, because the commutation of his sentence, to which he is entitled for good behavior, has been wrongfully denied, and that he became entitled to release on August 26, 1941.

¶6The respondent (appellee) made a motion to dismiss the application upon the ground that the petitioner was not, and had not been, in the respondent’s custody. This motion was granted, and the application was dismissed.

¶7The petitioner has appealed from the order dismissing his application. In his brief he offers no explanation or justification for naming the Attorney General as respondent.

¶8 The appellant is mistaken in believing that he is in the actual physical custody of the respondent and that the court below has jurisdiction to require the respondent, who is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, to produce the body of the petitioner. The statutes relating to habeas corpus manifestly contemplate that the respondent named in an application, for Habeas corpus shall be the person, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, who has the physical custody of the person of the petitioner and who is capable of producing him in court. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App. D.C. 307, 100 F.2d 717, 718. The power of a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus is limited to its territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 452; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230, 233; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 307, 100 F.2d 717. Compare, In re Boles, 8 Cir., 48 F. 75, 76. “The writ shall be directed to the person in whose custody the party is detained.” 28 U.S. C.A. § 455. There must be a prompt return to the writ (28 U.S.C.A. § 456), and the person making the return must produce the body of the petitioner before the judge who granted the writ. 28 U.S.C.A. § 458.

¶9While the prisons of the United States and the custody of federal prisoners under sentence are generally under the supervision of the Attorney General (Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 256, 262, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879), the actual management of such prisons and the care of prisoners is delegated to the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C.A. § 753a. It is, no doubt, true that, in a sense, all federal prisoners under sentence are in the custody of the Attorney General, but it is apparent that his custody of them is supervisory and regulatory, and that he does not have actual physical custody of a prisoner who is confined in a federal prison or other federal institution. See Galatas v. United States, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 15, 18, 19.

¶10The petitioner should have named the Warden of the Medical Center as respondent and should have alleged in the application for a writ of habeas corpus that he (petitioner) was in the custody of the Warden of that institution. See 28 U.S. C.A. § 454.

¶11The order appealed from is affirmed.

/131/f2d/853 · .json · Public domain