Thomas Marshall Moore v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Thomas Marshall Moore v. United States

339 F.2d 448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1964

Docket7862_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 339 F.2d 448 (Thomas Marshall Moore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas Marshall Moore v. United States, 339 F.2d 448 (10th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is presently confined in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. By a document filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and designated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus for state prisoners he alleges the fact of such confinement and also that he did, on July 20, 1954, plead guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 in the District of New Mexico but was surrendered, allegedly unlawfully, to state custody. The application was denied without a hearing.

The judgment is affirmed. If petitioner seeks relief against state custody he must direct his petition against those state officials holding him in restraint. If he seeks declaratory relief against the potentiality of future restraint by federal authority the Great Writ may not be used for such purpose. Osborne v. Taylor, Warden, 10 Cir., 328 F.2d 131, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S.Ct. 1936, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051; Gailes v. Yeager, Warden, 3 Cir., 324 F.2d 630, cert, denied, 368 U.S. 847, 82 S.Ct. 77, 7 L.Ed.2d 45.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is presently confined in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. By a document filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and designated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus for state prisoners he alleges the fact of such confinement and also that he did, on July 20, 1954, plead guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 in the District of New Mexico but was surrendered, allegedly unlawfully, to state custody. The application was denied without a hearing.

The judgment is affirmed. If petitioner seeks relief against state custody he must direct his petition against those state officials holding him in restraint. If he seeks declaratory relief against the potentiality of future restraint by federal authority the Great Writ may not be used for such purpose. Osborne v. Taylor, Warden, 10 Cir., 328 F.2d 131, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002, 84 S.Ct. 1936, 12 L.Ed.2d 1051; Gailes v. Yeager, Warden, 3 Cir., 324 F.2d 630, cert, denied, 368 U.S. 847, 82 S.Ct. 77, 7 L.Ed.2d 45.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 F.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-marshall-moore-v-united-states-ca10-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack