Grover A. Giles and J. J. Ferrin v. Helen Merrill

Tenth Circuit

Grover A. Giles and J. J. Ferrin v. Helen Merrill

322 F.2d 786, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4154

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1963

Docket7324

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 322 F.2d 786 (Grover A. Giles and J. J. Ferrin v. Helen Merrill) 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

Grover A. Giles and J. J. Ferrin v. Helen Merrill, 322 F.2d 786, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4154 (10th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the lower court granting appellee, Merrill, a writ of habeas corpus releasing her from the custody of certain Utah state officials who were acting to extradite Merrill to the State of Wyoming.

Merrill makes no attack upon the Utah statutes on extradition as violative of the Federal Constitution, but, contends that the statutory procedure provided for was not followed and, therefore, she was not afforded due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is conceded that no proceeding was had in the state courts to procure Merrill’s release from the alleged unlawful detention and no claim is made that there is an absence of available State corrective process.

Habeas corpus jurisdiction in the Federal court system arises by statutory grant and, as pointed out by appellee, extends to persons “ * * * in custody in violation of the Constitution * * *» of the United States. 1 The statute also conditions jurisdiction in *787 cases where the petitioner is being held pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 2 This statutory provision requires an exhaustion of available state court remedies 3 or a showing that there are no such remedies available before the Federal Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus. 4 This statutory requirement of exhaustion of state remedies applies to extradition proceedings. 5

The trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain Merrill’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the orders made pursuant thereto are a nullity. The judgment granting the Writ and other relief is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the same.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3).

2

. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3

. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837.

4

. Cox v. Raburn, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 856.

5

. Dye v. Johnson, 338 U.S. 864, 70 S.Ct. 146, 94 L.Ed. 530; Tickle v. Summers,. 4 Cir., 270 F.2d 848.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the lower court granting appellee, Merrill, a writ of habeas corpus releasing her from the custody of certain Utah state officials who were acting to extradite Merrill to the State of Wyoming.

Merrill makes no attack upon the Utah statutes on extradition as violative of the Federal Constitution, but, contends that the statutory procedure provided for was not followed and, therefore, she was not afforded due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is conceded that no proceeding was had in the state courts to procure Merrill’s release from the alleged unlawful detention and no claim is made that there is an absence of available State corrective process.

Habeas corpus jurisdiction in the Federal court system arises by statutory grant and, as pointed out by appellee, extends to persons “ * * * in custody in violation of the Constitution * * *» of the United States. 1 The statute also conditions jurisdiction in *787 cases where the petitioner is being held pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 2 This statutory provision requires an exhaustion of available state court remedies 3 or a showing that there are no such remedies available before the Federal Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus. 4 This statutory requirement of exhaustion of state remedies applies to extradition proceedings. 5

The trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain Merrill’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the orders made pursuant thereto are a nullity. The judgment granting the Writ and other relief is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the same.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3).

2

. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3

. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837.

4

. Cox v. Raburn, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 856.

5

. Dye v. Johnson, 338 U.S. 864, 70 S.Ct. 146, 94 L.Ed. 530; Tickle v. Summers,. 4 Cir., 270 F.2d 848.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 F.2d 786, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grover-a-giles-and-j-j-ferrin-v-helen-merrill-ca10-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack