Jones v. Welch

D.C. Circuit

Jones v. Welch

151 F.2d 769, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 253

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided November 19, 1945·No. No. 8933·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court denied appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The allegations of the petition related to the manner in which the Parole Board arrived at its decision not to admit appellant to parole. “Eligibility to parole * * * cannot be tried in habeas corpus.” Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 19, 141 F.2d 727, 728. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Goldsmith v. Aderholt, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 166. The judgment of the District Court was therefore right and is affirmed. We do not suggest that the Board’s alleged procedure was in any way defective.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court denied appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The allegations of the petition related to the manner in which the Parole Board arrived at its decision not to admit appellant to parole. “Eligibility to parole * * * cannot be tried in habeas corpus.” Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 19, 141 F.2d 727, 728. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Goldsmith v. Aderholt, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 166. The judgment of the District Court was therefore right and is affirmed. We do not suggest that the Board’s alleged procedure was in any way defective.

Jones v. Welch, 151 F.2d 769, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 253 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Pincite

151 F.2d 769 (Jones v. Welch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related