Willis v. Tollett

300 F. Supp. 273, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7709
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedNovember 27, 1968
DocketCiv. A. No. 2281
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 F. Supp. 273 (Willis v. Tollett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Willis v. Tollett, 300 F. Supp. 273, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7709 (E.D. Tenn. 1968).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

This application for the federal writ of habeas corpus was filed on September 26, 1968 by the petitioner, who is in custody of the respondent pursuant to the judgment of the Criminal Court of Sullivan County, Tennessee. The respondent moved to dismiss the application, apparently on the ground that the state trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s application for the state writ of habeas corpus on July 11, 1967 without an evidentiary hearing was corrected afterward by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, which reversed the trial court and remanded such application for a new trial in the lower court.

This Court can glean from the petitioner’s instant application no contention that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. This Court cannot entertain an application for the writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court unless it is claimed that he is in such custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S. C. § 2254(a).

The Court notices judicially its records in Willis v. Tollett, etc., civil action no. 2214, this district and division. Therein, this same petitioner raised questions under the federal Constitution concerning his restraint, and these were decided adversely to the petitioner. See memorandum opinion and order of July 17, 1968.

This Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s instant application, it has no jurisdiction to consider his motion for release on bail bond.

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

Related

Manier v. Neil
306 F. Supp. 643 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)
Jones v. Russell
299 F. Supp. 970 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 F. Supp. 273, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-tollett-tned-1968.