Paul E. Rhodes v. John Greenholtz and Maurice Sigler

Eighth Circuit

Paul E. Rhodes v. John Greenholtz and Maurice Sigler

308 F.2d 234, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1962

Docket17144_1

StatusPublished

This text of 308 F.2d 234 (Paul E. Rhodes v. John Greenholtz and Maurice Sigler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul E. Rhodes v. John Greenholtz and Maurice Sigler, 308 F.2d 234, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065 (8th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul E. Rhodes, on June 11, 1962, while a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska an application for a writ of ha-beas corpus challenging the legality of his detention. On June 27, 1962, the court denied his application. Rhodes appealed from the denial on July 24, 1962, and moved for leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. He was released from the Penitentiary on July 29, 1962. The district court, on August 13, 1962, concluded that the issues raised in the application for habeas corpus had become moot but granted Rhodes leave to prosecute his appeal as a poor person in the event that this Court should conclude that the issues raised by his application for a writ were not moot.

The appellees, on September 1, 1962, filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of mootness due to the release of Rhodes from the State *235 Penitentiary. He has filed a resistance to the motion, claiming in effect that he is entitled to a review of the questions raised as to the legality of his detention, notwithstanding his release from imprisonment.

The only judicial relief available in a habeas corpus proceeding is the discharge of the prisoner or his admission to bail. McNally v. Hill, 298 U.S. 131, 136, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. In that case it was said on p. 138, 55 S.Ct. on p. 27, “Without restraint of liberty, the writ will not issue. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, [5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277]; Stallings v. Splain, 253 U.S. 339, 343 [40 S.Ct. 537, 64 L.Ed. 940].” Since Rhodes is no longer a prisoner and no longer restrained of his liberty, his appeal is obviously moot. It is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul E. Rhodes, on June 11, 1962, while a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska an application for a writ of ha-beas corpus challenging the legality of his detention. On June 27, 1962, the court denied his application. Rhodes appealed from the denial on July 24, 1962, and moved for leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. He was released from the Penitentiary on July 29, 1962. The district court, on August 13, 1962, concluded that the issues raised in the application for habeas corpus had become moot but granted Rhodes leave to prosecute his appeal as a poor person in the event that this Court should conclude that the issues raised by his application for a writ were not moot.

The appellees, on September 1, 1962, filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of mootness due to the release of Rhodes from the State *235 Penitentiary. He has filed a resistance to the motion, claiming in effect that he is entitled to a review of the questions raised as to the legality of his detention, notwithstanding his release from imprisonment.

The only judicial relief available in a habeas corpus proceeding is the discharge of the prisoner or his admission to bail. McNally v. Hill, 298 U.S. 131, 136, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. In that case it was said on p. 138, 55 S.Ct. on p. 27, “Without restraint of liberty, the writ will not issue. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, [5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277]; Stallings v. Splain, 253 U.S. 339, 343 [40 S.Ct. 537, 64 L.Ed. 940].” Since Rhodes is no longer a prisoner and no longer restrained of his liberty, his appeal is obviously moot. It is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 F.2d 234, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-e-rhodes-v-john-greenholtz-and-maurice-sigler-ca8-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack