Krist v. Ricketts

Fifth Circuit

Krist v. Ricketts

504 F.2d 887, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5827

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1974

DocketNo. 74-2799

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 504 F.2d 887 (Krist v. Ricketts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krist v. Ricketts, 504 F.2d 887, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5827 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus based upon the claimed denial of procedural due process in connection with his administrative segregation in the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. The district court treated his complaint as seeking a civil rights remedy under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), and dismissed the complaint after petitioner refused to amend the complaint to set forth facts in support of his claim. Petitioner insists here that he was and is seeking ha-beas relief, and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his complaint as filed in the district court.

Generally, habeas corpus has been available to persons who seek release from solitary confinement within the context of general incarceration. Bryant v. Harris, 7 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 365; Walters v. Henderson, N.D.Ga., 1972, 352 F.Supp. 556. Cf. In re Bonner, 1894, 151 U.S. 242, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149; Coffin v. Reichard, 6 Cir., 1944, 143 F.2d 443, 155 A.L.R. 143, cert. denied 1945, 325 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 1568, 89 L.Ed. 2001. We have held that it is [888]*888proper for a district court to treat a petition for release from administrative segregation as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Decker, 5 Cir., 1970, 436 F.2d 954. See also Coonts v. Wainwright, M.D.Fla., 1968, 282 F.Supp. 893, aff’d 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 1337. Such release falls into the category of “fact or duration of . physical imprisonment” delineated in Preiser v. Rodriquez, 1973, 411 U.S. 475, 498-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L.Ed.2d 439, 455-456 and reserved for habeas jurisdiction. . We do not read Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 946, as holding to the contrary.

We see nothing • alleged which would convert the instant complaint into a § 1983 action and we therefore vacate and remand for consideration by the district court as a petition for habeas relief.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus based upon the claimed denial of procedural due process in connection with his administrative segregation in the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. The district court treated his complaint as seeking a civil rights remedy under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), and dismissed the complaint after petitioner refused to amend the complaint to set forth facts in support of his claim. Petitioner insists here that he was and is seeking ha-beas relief, and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his complaint as filed in the district court.

Generally, habeas corpus has been available to persons who seek release from solitary confinement within the context of general incarceration. Bryant v. Harris, 7 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 365; Walters v. Henderson, N.D.Ga., 1972, 352 F.Supp. 556. Cf. In re Bonner, 1894, 151 U.S. 242, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149; Coffin v. Reichard, 6 Cir., 1944, 143 F.2d 443, 155 A.L.R. 143, cert. denied 1945, 325 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 1568, 89 L.Ed. 2001. We have held that it is [888]*888proper for a district court to treat a petition for release from administrative segregation as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Decker, 5 Cir., 1970, 436 F.2d 954. See also Coonts v. Wainwright, M.D.Fla., 1968, 282 F.Supp. 893, aff’d 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 1337. Such release falls into the category of “fact or duration of . physical imprisonment” delineated in Preiser v. Rodriquez, 1973, 411 U.S. 475, 498-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1841, 36 L.Ed.2d 439, 455-456 and reserved for habeas jurisdiction. . We do not read Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 946, as holding to the contrary.

We see nothing • alleged which would convert the instant complaint into a § 1983 action and we therefore vacate and remand for consideration by the district court as a petition for habeas relief.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 F.2d 887, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krist-v-ricketts-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack