Schack v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schack v. State

194 So. 2d 53, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5223

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1967

DocketNo. I-161

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 So. 2d 53 (Schack v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schack v. State, 194 So. 2d 53, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5223 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

SACK, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While incarcerated in the state prison at Raiford, Florida, he presented a complaint, addressed to Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to a prison official and asked that it be forwarded by “certified mail — return receipt requested.” The official refused but advised the prisoner that he would give assurance that the document had been mailed. Appellant objected that this would not constitute positive proof of service and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied.

Appellant contends that he has been prohibited from properly forwarding legal documents in compliance with Rule 4, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is well established that prisoners lawfully confined to state penitentiaries may be subjected to reasonable internal discipline concerning the use of the mails. Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961). However, we do not reach the question of the reasonableness of the prison official’s action in this case.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the refusal to forward prisoner’s complaint by “certified mail- — return receipt requested” was improper, the writ was properly denied. A writ of habeas corpus cannot issue if the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from his confinement. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1940); Warfield v. Raymond, 195 Md. 711, 71 A.2d 870 (1950).

[54]*54Petitioner, appellant here, having failed to establish that he is being unlawfully confined, the order below is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

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

SACK, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While incarcerated in the state prison at Raiford, Florida, he presented a complaint, addressed to Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to a prison official and asked that it be forwarded by “certified mail — return receipt requested.” The official refused but advised the prisoner that he would give assurance that the document had been mailed. Appellant objected that this would not constitute positive proof of service and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied.

Appellant contends that he has been prohibited from properly forwarding legal documents in compliance with Rule 4, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is well established that prisoners lawfully confined to state penitentiaries may be subjected to reasonable internal discipline concerning the use of the mails. Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961). However, we do not reach the question of the reasonableness of the prison official’s action in this case.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the refusal to forward prisoner’s complaint by “certified mail- — return receipt requested” was improper, the writ was properly denied. A writ of habeas corpus cannot issue if the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from his confinement. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1940); Warfield v. Raymond, 195 Md. 711, 71 A.2d 870 (1950).

[54]*54Petitioner, appellant here, having failed to establish that he is being unlawfully confined, the order below is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 2d 53, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schack-v-state-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack