Charles Gregory Cannon v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

Tenth Circuit

Charles Gregory Cannon v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

358 F.2d 719, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1966

Docket8591_1

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 719 (Charles Gregory Cannon v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Gregory Cannon v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 358 F.2d 719, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6579 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

BOHANON, District Judge.

The Petitioner, Cannon, is presently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, for a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Petitioner filed in the District Court a petition seeking to require the Warden at the United States Prison to show cause why he should not be released. The petition was denied by the District Court without a hearing, and the petition dismissed.

It is Petitioner’s contention that a certain number of days of good time which he claimed to have earned was cancelled by the prison authorities, which was taken away from him for “alleged homosexual act (not proven).” If such good time were restored he would be presently entitled to be released. Petitioner does not allege in his pleading that his forfeited good time was taken from him as a result of any arbitrary or capricious action. He merely alleges that he was “not guilty” of the alleged violation of the rules of the institution. As a minimum requirement the Petitioner, in order to have a factual hearing, was required to allege enough facts to raise a substantial issue of fact. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232.

The control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions is vested in the Attorney General of the United States, and it is his responsibility to provide for the proper government, discipline, treatment, care, and rehabilitation of federal prisoners. It is the settled law that Courts will not undertake to superintend or supervise the administration of Federal prisons, since this is an administrative function delegated to the Attorney General. Sturm v. McGrath (10 Cir.), 177 F.2d 472; Dayton v. Hunter (10 Cir.), 176 F.2d 108; Roberts v. Pegelow (4 Cir.), 313 F.2d 548.

Before this Court or the District Court should assume jurisdiction, the Petitioner must have exhausted his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4166. This he has not done.

The Order of the District Court dismissing the petition is affirmed, without prejudice to the Petitioner to pursue his administrative remedies.

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

BOHANON, District Judge.

The Petitioner, Cannon, is presently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, for a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Petitioner filed in the District Court a petition seeking to require the Warden at the United States Prison to show cause why he should not be released. The petition was denied by the District Court without a hearing, and the petition dismissed.

It is Petitioner’s contention that a certain number of days of good time which he claimed to have earned was cancelled by the prison authorities, which was taken away from him for “alleged homosexual act (not proven).” If such good time were restored he would be presently entitled to be released. Petitioner does not allege in his pleading that his forfeited good time was taken from him as a result of any arbitrary or capricious action. He merely alleges that he was “not guilty” of the alleged violation of the rules of the institution. As a minimum requirement the Petitioner, in order to have a factual hearing, was required to allege enough facts to raise a substantial issue of fact. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232.

The control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions is vested in the Attorney General of the United States, and it is his responsibility to provide for the proper government, discipline, treatment, care, and rehabilitation of federal prisoners. It is the settled law that Courts will not undertake to superintend or supervise the administration of Federal prisons, since this is an administrative function delegated to the Attorney General. Sturm v. McGrath (10 Cir.), 177 F.2d 472; Dayton v. Hunter (10 Cir.), 176 F.2d 108; Roberts v. Pegelow (4 Cir.), 313 F.2d 548.

Before this Court or the District Court should assume jurisdiction, the Petitioner must have exhausted his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4166. This he has not done.

The Order of the District Court dismissing the petition is affirmed, without prejudice to the Petitioner to pursue his administrative remedies.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 719, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-gregory-cannon-v-j-t-willingham-warden-united-states-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack