199 F.2d 367 - Henson v. Welch — 199 F.2d 367

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1970

11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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.

¶1 *368Clarence Henson, pro se, on the brief.

¶2William P. Woolls, Jr., Sp. Asst, to the U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (A. Carter Whitehead, U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee. .

¶3t, , , Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and „ _ , T .. T j SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. ■

¶4PER CURIAM

¶5™ . . , , , , This is an appeal from an order denying r , u ... , ,, a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. No question is raised in the petition for habeas corpus as to the validity of the judgment and sentence under which the prisoner is held, but he seeks the writ for the purpose of reviewing disci-’ plinary action taken on account of alleged breach of prison discipline of which appellant denies that he was guilty. We agree with the District Judge that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used for this purpose. “Since the prison system of the Unit-ed States is entrusted to the Bureau of -Pris°ns under the direction of the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4042, supra, the courts have no Power to supervise the disciPline …, but only on habeas corpus to deliver from prison those who are ille.. , . . , „ „ „. gaily detained.” Williams v. Steele, 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 32, 34, s. c. on rehearing 194 F.2d 917-918. See also Snow v. Roche, 9 Cir., 143 F.2d 718, 719. The petition for writ r, , , , . , of habeas corpus was properly denied.

¶6Affirmed.