John Beckett, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

Fifth Circuit

John Beckett, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

363 F.2d 505, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5556

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 8, 1966·No. 23322·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of counterfeiting and possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes. The habeas petition alleges two grounds for discharge: (1) that prison officials were subjecting Appellant to cruel and unusual punishment by requiring him to perform work beyond his physical capacity; and (2) that Appellant was improperly deprived of good time allowances because of his transfer .from one penitentiary to another. The District Court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s petition at which evidence was introduced regarding the first of these grounds. In a thorough, detailed opinion, the Court denied habeas relief. Beckett v. Kearney, D.C., 1965, 247 F.Supp. 219 [Nov. 18, 1965].

The record of his prison service shows no good time has been forfeited. As to the principal ground of relief, the record shows, and the District Court found, that the prison authorities had transferred him to lighter duties and there was no probability in the future that he would be assigned to duties beyond his physical capacity. Whatever power the District Court might have in such a situation — upon which we make no decision — this finding is amply supported and fully justified denial of this extraordinary relief.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of counterfeiting and possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes. The habeas petition alleges two grounds for discharge: (1) that prison officials were subjecting Appellant to cruel and unusual punishment by requiring him to perform work beyond his physical capacity; and (2) that Appellant was improperly deprived of good time allowances because of his transfer .from one penitentiary to another. The District Court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s petition at which evidence was introduced regarding the first of these grounds. In a thorough, detailed opinion, the Court denied habeas relief. Beckett v. Kearney, D.C., 1965, 247 F.Supp. 219 [Nov. 18, 1965].

The record of his prison service shows no good time has been forfeited. As to the principal ground of relief, the record shows, and the District Court found, that the prison authorities had transferred him to lighter duties and there was no probability in the future that he would be assigned to duties beyond his physical capacity. Whatever power the District Court might have in such a situation — upon which we make no decision — this finding is amply supported and fully justified denial of this extraordinary relief.

Affirmed.

John Beckett, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 363 F.2d 505, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5556 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

363 F.2d 505 (John Beckett, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related