Jimmie Fielding v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital

D.C. Circuit

Jimmie Fielding v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital

268 F.2d 898, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1959

Docket14989_1

StatusPublished

This text of 268 F.2d 898 (Jimmie Fielding v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmie Fielding v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, 268 F.2d 898, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Consequent upon our opinion in Fielding v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App. D.C. 167, 251 F.2d 878, a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity was entered and Fielding was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to D.C.Code § 24-301 (Supp. VII, 1959) failed to allege that petitioner “will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others.” The Superintendent in response to the District Court’s rule to show cause filed a sworn return disclosing that petitioner is suffering from a mental illness, schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, and that the Superintendent “is not warranted in certifying, at this time, that the petitioner has recovered from his abnormal mental condition and that he will not be dangerous to himself or others within the reasonable future.” Petitioner failed thereafter to traverse or otherwise to put in issue the conclusions of the Superintendent. He filed no supplemental pleading to allege that the failure of the Su *899 perintendent to issue the statutory certificate was arbitrary or capricious. On the record so stated, the district judge concluded that a hearing was not necessary. We have reviewed the record and have concluded that there is no error. Gf. Stewart v. Overholser, 1950, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 402, 186 F.2d 339 (en banc).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Consequent upon our opinion in Fielding v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App. D.C. 167, 251 F.2d 878, a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity was entered and Fielding was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to D.C.Code § 24-301 (Supp. VII, 1959) failed to allege that petitioner “will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others.” The Superintendent in response to the District Court’s rule to show cause filed a sworn return disclosing that petitioner is suffering from a mental illness, schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, and that the Superintendent “is not warranted in certifying, at this time, that the petitioner has recovered from his abnormal mental condition and that he will not be dangerous to himself or others within the reasonable future.” Petitioner failed thereafter to traverse or otherwise to put in issue the conclusions of the Superintendent. He filed no supplemental pleading to allege that the failure of the Su *899 perintendent to issue the statutory certificate was arbitrary or capricious. On the record so stated, the district judge concluded that a hearing was not necessary. We have reviewed the record and have concluded that there is no error. Gf. Stewart v. Overholser, 1950, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 402, 186 F.2d 339 (en banc).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 F.2d 898, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmie-fielding-v-winfred-overholser-superintendent-st-elizabeths-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack