Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

518 F.2d 173

Docket No. 75-2507.

In re Wainwright

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 25, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1975.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1975-06-25

4 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In spite of the lack of specific statutory authorization, it is within the inherent power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his [or her] application for a writ of habeas corpus.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Martin v. Solem, Landano v. Rafferty

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on PepsiCo, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Johnston v. Marsh · Calley v. Callaway

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1975-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2007

17 federal appellate ·

1301975198019902000decided

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 →

¶1*174Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. of Fla., Tallahassee, Fla., Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for petitioner.

¶2Ben Krentzman, U.S. District Judge.

¶3Paul Game, Jr., U.S. Magistrate.

¶4Joel P. Yanchuck, St. Petersburg, Fla.

¶5Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

¶8ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

¶9Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

¶10PER CURIAM:

¶11Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and petitioner herein, seeks from this court a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition directed at the Honorable Ben Krentzman, United States District Judge, and/or the Honorable Paul Game, Jr., United States Magistrate. Basically, Mr. Wainwright complains that Magistrate Game exceeded his jurisdiction in releasing on bond a Florida state prisoner pending adjudication of that prisoner’s habeas corpus action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief aimed at confining Magistrate Game to his supposed jurisdiction.

¶12In spite of the lack of specific statutory authorization, it is within the inherent power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his application for a writ of habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Thomas v. State of New Jersey, 472 F.2d 735, 743 (3rd Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 121, 38 L.Ed.2d 123 (1973); Woodcock v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 93, 94 (1st Cir. 1972); Johnston v. Marsh, 221 F.2d 528 (3rd Cir. 1955); Goodman v. Ault, 358 F.Supp. 743 (N.D.Ga.1978); cf. Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974); Jimenez v. Aristiguieta, 314 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1963); Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 23.

¶13Release of the prisoner on bond being clearly within the power and jurisdiction of the district court, the extraordinary writs of prohibition or mandamus will not issue for the purpose of regulating that court’s internal arrangements for exercising that power, especially when the magistrate was presumably authorized to act by the judge of the court. *175Nor will either issue to direct a United States District Judge to refrain from delegating one of his powers, when there is no statutory or higher court authority specifically forbidding the delegation and, thus, no showing of consistent refusal to perform a known duty.1

¶14The petition is denied.

/518/f2d/173 · .json · Public domain