United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Townsend v. Richard B. Ogilvie, Sheriff of Cook County, and Jack Johnson, Warden of Cookcounty Jail

360 F.2d 925, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6133
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 1966
Docket15315_1
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 925 (United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Townsend v. Richard B. Ogilvie, Sheriff of Cook County, and Jack Johnson, Warden of Cookcounty Jail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Townsend v. Richard B. Ogilvie, Sheriff of Cook County, and Jack Johnson, Warden of Cookcounty Jail, 360 F.2d 925, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6133 (7th Cir. 1966).

Opinion

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

On the last occasion the petitioner was before this court, an order of the district court granting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to a petition filed nearly eight years ago under section 2241 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was reversed on the ground that the petitioner was not being confined in violation of federal law. 1 United States ex rel. Townsend v. Ogilvie, 334 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 984, 85 S.Ct. 683, 13 L.Ed.2d 574 (1965). Following the denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court, the mandate of this court issued directing the district court to dismiss the petition. The petitioner subsequently sought leave in the district court to amend his petition to set forth grounds not theretofore presented. The district court refused to permit amendment, stating that it had no power with respect to the petition before it to deviate from the mandate issued by this court.

The district court was correct. E. g., Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. R., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948). Therefore, regardless of the views we might have concerning the merits of the new grounds advanced or whether another petition might be con *926 sidered an abuse of the writ, we are limited to determining whether the district court complied with the mandate. Since its order was entered in exact accordance with the mandate, this appeal cannot be maintained. Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361, 24 L.Ed. 1044 (1878); Lack v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co., 155 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1946).

The appeal is dismissed.

1

. For tlie history of this litigation, relating primarily to the question of the voluntariness of a confession of murder for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death, see People v. Townsend, 11 Ill.2d 30, 141 N.E.2d 729, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 850, 78 S.Ct. 76, 2 L.Ed.2d 60 (1957); United States ex rel. Townsend v. Sain, 265 F.2d 660 (7th. Cir. 1958), rev’d, 359 U.S. 64, 79 S.Ct. 655, 3 L.Ed.2d 634 (1959); 276 E.2d 324 (7th Cir. 1960), cert. granted, 365 U.S. 866, 81 S.Ct. 907, 5 L.Ed.2d 859 (1961), rev’d, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963).

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

Related

United States v. Virgil Redmond
571 F.2d 513 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Twomey
452 F.2d 350 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey
452 F.2d 350 (Seventh Circuit, 1971)
United States Ex Rel. Townsend v. Twomey
322 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Illinois, 1971)
Thomas Goodwin, Jr. v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden
432 F.2d 521 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Hoffa
382 F.2d 856 (Sixth Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
360 F.2d 925, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-charles-townsend-v-richard-b-ogilvie-ca7-1966.