Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond

Sixth Circuit

Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond

264 F.2d 242, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1959

Docket13629_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 264 F.2d 242 (Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond, 264 F.2d 242, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428 (6th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. A former application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the validity of the same judgment was previously denied by the District Court. This ruling was affirmed by this Court in Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, wherein the factual background is stated.

Insofar as the present application attempts to again raise questions considered in the prior application or which could have been presented and considered in the prior application, the District Judge was not required to entertain it. Sec. 2244, Title 28 U.S.C.; *243 Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999; United States ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 7 Cir., 245 F.2d 88, 91-92; Swihart v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 150 F.2d 721, 723, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 789, 66 S.Ct. 803, 90 L.Ed. 1016.

If petitioner is now relying upon a new ground which he contends was not previously available to him, there is no showing that he has applied for relief to the District Court wherein he was sentenced, or that the remedy by such a motion before that court would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. A former application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the validity of the same judgment was previously denied by the District Court. This ruling was affirmed by this Court in Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, wherein the factual background is stated.

Insofar as the present application attempts to again raise questions considered in the prior application or which could have been presented and considered in the prior application, the District Judge was not required to entertain it. Sec. 2244, Title 28 U.S.C.; *243 Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999; United States ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 7 Cir., 245 F.2d 88, 91-92; Swihart v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 150 F.2d 721, 723, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 789, 66 S.Ct. 803, 90 L.Ed. 1016.

If petitioner is now relying upon a new ground which he contends was not previously available to him, there is no showing that he has applied for relief to the District Court wherein he was sentenced, or that the remedy by such a motion before that court would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F.2d 242, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judson-broadus-bey-v-dr-murray-a-diamond-ca6-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack