Albert Francis Frazier v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Third Circuit

Albert Francis Frazier v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

325 F.2d 154

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1963

Docket14617

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 154 (Albert Francis Frazier v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Francis Frazier v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 325 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below. He challenged the legality of judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The said petition was denied •on the ground that the remedy available to the appellant under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C., was appropriate and adequate. The present appeal followed. We agree with the decision of the court below.

This Court has heretofore held that a prisoner held in custody pursuant to a judgment of conviction entered in a federal court may not collaterally attack the judgment by habeas corpus where, as here, the remedy available under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C. is adequate. Andrews v. Willingham, 288 F.2d 65 (3 Cir. 1961); Fungone v. United States, 253 F.2d 194 (3 Cir. 1958); United States ex rel. Josey v. Humphrey, 210 F.2d 826 (3 Cir. 1954); United States v. Anselmi, 207 F.2d 312 (3 Cir. 1953), cert. den. 345 U.S. 947, 73 S.Ct. 868, 97 L.Ed. 1371. The prisoner is limited to the remedy therein provided except when it is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Ibid.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below. He challenged the legality of judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The said petition was denied •on the ground that the remedy available to the appellant under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C., was appropriate and adequate. The present appeal followed. We agree with the decision of the court below.

This Court has heretofore held that a prisoner held in custody pursuant to a judgment of conviction entered in a federal court may not collaterally attack the judgment by habeas corpus where, as here, the remedy available under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C. is adequate. Andrews v. Willingham, 288 F.2d 65 (3 Cir. 1961); Fungone v. United States, 253 F.2d 194 (3 Cir. 1958); United States ex rel. Josey v. Humphrey, 210 F.2d 826 (3 Cir. 1954); United States v. Anselmi, 207 F.2d 312 (3 Cir. 1953), cert. den. 345 U.S. 947, 73 S.Ct. 868, 97 L.Ed. 1371. The prisoner is limited to the remedy therein provided except when it is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Ibid.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-francis-frazier-v-olin-g-blackwell-warden-united-states-ca3-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack