From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faught v. Ciccone

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D
Jun 21, 1966
283 F. Supp. 76 (W.D. Mo. 1966)

Opinion

No. 16041-4.

June 21, 1966.

Petitioner, pro se.

No Government attorney — Court ruled prior to filing of briefs by Government.


ORDER OVERRULING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS


Petitioner is presently confined in the Federal Medical Center. He is seeking leave to file, in forma pauperis, a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Leave to file in forma pauperis is hereby granted.

The gist of the application is that the petitioner is being subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment," in that he has a heart disease which requires an artificial valve implant, and the Medical Center is not equipped to perform, and therefore will not perform, this operation.

Assuming as true all of the facts in the application, the petitioner has not stated a cause of action. The decisions of the Federal Medical Center authorities as to what, if any, medical treatment should be given to the inmates are decisions with which this Court should not, and will not, interfere. See, Eaton v. Ciccone, 283 F. Supp. 75 (W.D. Mo. 1966).

Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is overruled.


Summaries of

Faught v. Ciccone

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D
Jun 21, 1966
283 F. Supp. 76 (W.D. Mo. 1966)
Case details for

Faught v. Ciccone

Case Details

Full title:Ivan D. FAUGHT, Petitioner, v. Dr. P.J. CICCONE, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 21, 1966

Citations

283 F. Supp. 76 (W.D. Mo. 1966)

Citing Cases

United States ex Rel. Ingram v. Mont. Cty. Pris.

Thus we do not have a case like Lansdown v. Worthey, 458 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1972), in which a directed…

Rhem v. McGrath

In short, the conditions here, while not to be condoned, are not sufficiently offensive or severe to reach…