From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. United States Board of Parole

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 7, 1952
194 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

Summary

holding that challenge to validity of petitioner's place of detention by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced must be made under § 2255

Summary of this case from Long v. Mukasey

Opinion

Nos. 11108, 11109, 11153.

Argued December 3, 1951.

Decided February 7, 1952.

Robert L. Heald, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.

Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty, Washington, D.C., for appellees. George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty. at the time the motion was filed, Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty. at the time of argument, and Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U.S. Atty., all of Washington, D.C., also entered appearances on behalf of appellees.

Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.


Motions have been made in behalf of appellees (defendants below) to affirm the judgments below upon the ground that each appeal is without merit. The attorney assigned by this court to represent appellant, a prisoner confined in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, also advises the court to like effect.

In 11108 the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. See opinion of this court in McCann v. Clark, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 191 F.2d 476. Moreover, as the complaint apparently seeks a declaratory judgment concerning matters which do not present an actual controversy it clearly fails to state a cause of action. 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. Warren, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 129 F.2d 43.

In 11109 complainant seeks by mandamus to obtain his transfer from the Medical Center at Springfield to an ordinary penal institution upon the ground that he was illegally transferred to the Center and is now illegally detained there. Mandamus will not lie. It cannot be used as a substitute for habeas corpus. McMurtrey v. Clark, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 157 F.2d 703, certiorari denied, 1947, 329 U.S. 805, 67 S.Ct. 492, 91 L.Ed. 687. Nor will habeas corpus lie in the District of Columbia, for the complainant is not confined within the territorial jurisdiction of its courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Ahrens v. Clark, 1948, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898; McAffee v. Clemmer, 1948, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 57, 171 F.2d 131, certiorari denied, 1949, 337 U.S. 932, 69 S.Ct. 1485, 93 L.Ed. 1739. Cf. Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 381, 182 F.2d 677, 682, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608.

In 11153, complainant also seeks through injunction proceedings to test the validity of his detention at Springfield by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced. However, his suit cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, nor to compel the Attorney General to exercise powers which do not belong to him. McMurtrey v. Clark, supra. Furthermore, the proper remedy, if any, is by way of habeas corpus or Title 28, § 2255, United States Code, which would not lie in this jurisdiction. McAffee v. Clemmer, supra. See Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350.

The motion to affirm is granted in each case.


Summaries of

Taylor v. United States Board of Parole

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 7, 1952
194 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

holding that challenge to validity of petitioner's place of detention by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced must be made under § 2255

Summary of this case from Long v. Mukasey

holding that challenge to validity of petitioner's place of detention by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced must be made under § 2255

Summary of this case from Malcolm v. Gonzales

concluding that motion under § 2255 is proper remedy for attack on constitutionality of statute under which petitioner was convicted and sentenced

Summary of this case from Gassew v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

concluding that § 2255 is proper vehicle for challenge to constitutionality of statute under which appellant was convicted

Summary of this case from Williams v. Sessions

concluding that the "proper remedy [to challenge constitutionality of a conviction] is by way of habeas corpus of Title 28 Sec. 2255, United States Code"

Summary of this case from Hall v. Lynch

stating that attack on constitutionality of statute under which defendant was convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Summary of this case from Ransom v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C.

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Chapman v. Obama

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Al Kassar v. Samuels

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Sheneman v. Brook

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Sheneman v. United States

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Hall v. Million

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Stevens v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of the United States

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Barbosa v. Million

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Todd v. House of Representatives

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Hills v. Million

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Avila-Luna v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of U.S.

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Aguilar-Cortez v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of U.S.

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Villa v. Office of the Attorney Gen.

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Johnson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Castillo v. Office of the Attorney Gen.

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Becton v. United States

stating that a motion under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Johnson v. United States

stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Hames v. United States

stating that a motion under § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Evans v. Samuels

stating that a motion under § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted

Summary of this case from Morris v. Sentencing Comm'n
Case details for

Taylor v. United States Board of Parole

Case Details

Full title:TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE. TAYLOR v. McGRATH, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 7, 1952

Citations

194 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

Citing Cases

Youngblood v. Gonzales

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (where…

Wing v. Davis

Petitioner has not made a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is the mandated vehicle for a collateral…