Meyer Caplan v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths Hospital

D.C. Circuit

Meyer Caplan v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths Hospital

369 F.2d 195, 125 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5032

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 1966

Docket19815_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 369 F.2d 195 (Meyer Caplan v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer Caplan v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths Hospital, 369 F.2d 195, 125 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5032 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

BAZELON, Chief Judge:

Petitioner, acting pro se, filed this ha-beas corpus petition seeking release from Saint Elizabeths Hospital. He had been involuntarily committed by the District Court following its determination that he was not guilty by reason of insanity of assault with a dangerous weapon in February 1965. At the habeas hearing, where he was represented by appointed counsel, it appeared that petitioner’s schizophrenia is now in remission and that the Hospital would recommend his release conditioned on plans for employment and living. The Hospital psychiatrist testified, however, that his present plans were “too vague.” The court denied the writ on the sole finding that petitioner had not recovered from his mental illness and would be a danger to the community if released.

From the briefs and arguments on appeal, it now appears that appellant wished the hospital authorities to release him temporarily solely for the purpose of travelling to his home city of Baltimore to seek the employment and living arrangements necessary for conditional release. However, this was not expressly asserted at the hearing below. Notwithstanding this failure, we think that “law and justice”, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, would be best served by remanding the case to the District Court with directions to consider the matter upon petitioner’s request. Since appellant initiated these proceedings pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis, and since proceedings involving the mentally ill are not strictly adversary, we are constrained not to burden him with the task of filing a new petition for this purpose. These considerations also make it desirable that petitioner’s counsel in this court continue to represent petitioner on remand.

Remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

BAZELON, Chief Judge:

Petitioner, acting pro se, filed this ha-beas corpus petition seeking release from Saint Elizabeths Hospital. He had been involuntarily committed by the District Court following its determination that he was not guilty by reason of insanity of assault with a dangerous weapon in February 1965. At the habeas hearing, where he was represented by appointed counsel, it appeared that petitioner’s schizophrenia is now in remission and that the Hospital would recommend his release conditioned on plans for employment and living. The Hospital psychiatrist testified, however, that his present plans were “too vague.” The court denied the writ on the sole finding that petitioner had not recovered from his mental illness and would be a danger to the community if released.

From the briefs and arguments on appeal, it now appears that appellant wished the hospital authorities to release him temporarily solely for the purpose of travelling to his home city of Baltimore to seek the employment and living arrangements necessary for conditional release. However, this was not expressly asserted at the hearing below. Notwithstanding this failure, we think that “law and justice”, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, would be best served by remanding the case to the District Court with directions to consider the matter upon petitioner’s request. Since appellant initiated these proceedings pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis, and since proceedings involving the mentally ill are not strictly adversary, we are constrained not to burden him with the task of filing a new petition for this purpose. These considerations also make it desirable that petitioner’s counsel in this court continue to represent petitioner on remand.

Remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F.2d 195, 125 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-caplan-v-dale-c-cameron-superintendent-saint-elizabeths-hospital-cadc-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack