William E. Humphries v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Director, United States Medical Center

Eighth Circuit

William E. Humphries v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Director, United States Medical Center

428 F.2d 477, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8404

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1970

Docket20081_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 428 F.2d 477 (William E. Humphries v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Director, United States Medical Center) 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

William E. Humphries v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Director, United States Medical Center, 428 F.2d 477, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8404 (8th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal by William E. Humphries, pro se in forma pauperis, from final order of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Humphries in his petition asserts that he is confined in the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, on a five-year sentence imposed upon him upon his plea of guilty to violating the Marijuana Taxing statutes, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4744(a) and 4742(a), which sentence was imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

He attacks the constitutional validity of the statutes which he was charged with violating. As a basis for dismissal, the trial court states: “Whatever merit the argument may have, petitioner has presented his plea to the wrong court. He is clearly attacking the constitutional validity of his sentence, and that should be done in the sentencing court.”

Twenty-eight U.S.C.A. § 2255 clearly permits and requires the attack on a federal sentence to be made in the sentencing court absent a showing that such court has denied relief or that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the detention. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Glenn v. Ciccone, 8 Cir., 370 F.2d 361, 362; Gajewski v. Stevens, 8 Cir., 346 F.2d 1000, 1002.

Humphries in his petition states that he has sought no § 2255 relief in the sentencing court. The petition contains no allegation asserting that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

The trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for habeas corpus. The petition was properly dismissed. Nothing herein precludes Humphries’ right to seek relief in the sentencing court.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal by William E. Humphries, pro se in forma pauperis, from final order of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Humphries in his petition asserts that he is confined in the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, on a five-year sentence imposed upon him upon his plea of guilty to violating the Marijuana Taxing statutes, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4744(a) and 4742(a), which sentence was imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

He attacks the constitutional validity of the statutes which he was charged with violating. As a basis for dismissal, the trial court states: “Whatever merit the argument may have, petitioner has presented his plea to the wrong court. He is clearly attacking the constitutional validity of his sentence, and that should be done in the sentencing court.”

Twenty-eight U.S.C.A. § 2255 clearly permits and requires the attack on a federal sentence to be made in the sentencing court absent a showing that such court has denied relief or that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the detention. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Glenn v. Ciccone, 8 Cir., 370 F.2d 361, 362; Gajewski v. Stevens, 8 Cir., 346 F.2d 1000, 1002.

Humphries in his petition states that he has sought no § 2255 relief in the sentencing court. The petition contains no allegation asserting that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

The trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for habeas corpus. The petition was properly dismissed. Nothing herein precludes Humphries’ right to seek relief in the sentencing court.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 F.2d 477, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-e-humphries-v-dr-p-j-ciccone-director-united-states-medical-ca8-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack