Kenneth Maynard v. James A. Rhodes

Sixth Circuit

Kenneth Maynard v. James A. Rhodes

580 F.2d 237, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1978

Docket77-3023

StatusPublished

This text of 580 F.2d 237 (Kenneth Maynard v. James A. Rhodes) 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

Kenneth Maynard v. James A. Rhodes, 580 F.2d 237, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9799 (6th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from dismissal of their civil rights complaint alleging abuse of constitutional rights because of Maynard’s al *238 legedly unlawful extradition from California to Ohio. The essence of plaintiffs’ complaint seems to be that the Governor of Ohio and his assistants extradited Kenneth Maynard solely at the insistence of his bondsman. In fact, however, the record discloses that Kenneth Maynard had already been indicted in Ohio at the time the Governor’s request for extradition was forwarded to California and that he has subsequently been tried, convicted and sentenced in Ohio.

For these reasons, and those further spelled out in the opinion of District Judge Kinneary filed November 1, 1976, 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.

Plaintiffs appeal from dismissal of their civil rights complaint alleging abuse of constitutional rights because of Maynard’s al *238 legedly unlawful extradition from California to Ohio. The essence of plaintiffs’ complaint seems to be that the Governor of Ohio and his assistants extradited Kenneth Maynard solely at the insistence of his bondsman. In fact, however, the record discloses that Kenneth Maynard had already been indicted in Ohio at the time the Governor’s request for extradition was forwarded to California and that he has subsequently been tried, convicted and sentenced in Ohio.

For these reasons, and those further spelled out in the opinion of District Judge Kinneary filed November 1, 1976, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 F.2d 237, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-maynard-v-james-a-rhodes-ca6-1978.