United States ex rel. Doss v. Lindsley

60 F. Supp. 720, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1549
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois
DecidedMay 13, 1944
DocketNo. 404-D
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F. Supp. 720 (United States ex rel. Doss v. Lindsley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Doss v. Lindsley, 60 F. Supp. 720, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1549 (illinoised 1944).

Opinion

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Petitioner, convicted of criminal libel in Piatt County Circuit Court, the judgment having been affirmed in 384 Ill. 400, 51 N.E.2d 517, and certiorari having been denied by the Supreme Court of the United States March 27, 1944, 321 U.S. 789, 64 S.Ct. 788, 88 L.Ed. 1079, petitions for 'a writ of habeas corpus, averring that at the time the petition was filed, the Sheriff of Piatt County was about to forfeit his bond and take him into custody in pursuance of said judgment of conviction. He avers that his constitutional rights have been violated in the state proceeding and that his incarceration would work a breach of such rights.

The situation is not greatly different from that involved in a similar petition by the same party seeking relief from another conviction for contempt of court and what I said in disposing of that matter is for the most part directly applicable here. See Doss v. Lindsley, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 427.

I am not at liberty to ignore the rule that the actions of state officials under state statutes are generally not to be interfered with by the United States Courts ; that whether the proceedings of a state tribunal are in accord with the Constitution and laws is primarily a question for the state and that, as a corollary, one convicted in the state court must exhaust his remedies in the tribunals of the commonwealth before resorting to the federal courts. These controlling rules have been lately reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Hawk, 1944, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572; hence I see no necessity for further comment. Pertinent and of the same character are Kelly v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 81, and Potts v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 12. These late authorities only confirm the conclusion reached in Doss v. Lindsley, supra.

Accordingly it is ordered that the petition be and the same is hereby denied.

Petitioner shall remain at large upon his present bail bond for a period of thirty days for the purpose of perfecting an appeal from this order, and in case such appeal shall be perfected, until final disposition of the appeal.

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

Related

Ex Parte Hawk
321 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Kelly v. Dowd
140 F.2d 81 (Seventh Circuit, 1944)
Doss v. Lindsley
53 F. Supp. 427 (E.D. Illinois, 1944)
The People v. Doss
51 N.E.2d 517 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1943)
Potts v. Dowd
141 F.2d 12 (Seventh Circuit, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. Supp. 720, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-doss-v-lindsley-illinoised-1944.