CARL E. COOK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
JACK A. HANBERRY, WARDEN, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner's claim of mistreatment during incarceration does not entitle them to release via habeas corpus, even if the mistreatment violates the Eighth Amendment.
A federal prisoner, Cook, sought release or transfer to a different facility via a § 2255 petition. His request for transfer was moot, but he also all…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
A federal prisoner currently serving sentences for bank robbery and assaulting a fellow inmate with a deadly weapon, Cook filed a pro se petition, styled under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking release or return from the Atlanta Prison where he was then incarcerated to a facility on the West Coast where he had previously been confined.
The general rule in federal cases requires that an actual controversy exist at all stages of appellate review, “and not simply at the date the action is initiated.” Roe v. Wade, 1972, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. Insofar as Cook’s petitions sought relief in the form of a transfer back to a West Coast facility, the issue has become moot. See McRae v. Hogan, 5 Cir. 1978, 576 F. 2d 615, 616-17.
The prisoner asserts the additional claim, not moot, that he is entitled to release because the treatment accorded him by the prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment.
Assuming arguendo that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner is still not entitled to release from prison. Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration. Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F. 2d 9, 12-13; see also, Williams v. Steele, 8 Cir. 1952, 194 F. 2d 917, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 822, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 640. The relief from such unconstitutional practices, if proved, is in the form of equitably-imposed restraint, not freedom from otherwise lawful incarceration. See Konigsberg v. Ciccone, W.D.Mo. 1968, 285 F.Supp. 585, 589, aff’d, 8 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 151, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 996, 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970). This is because the sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody, and it cannot be used for any other purpose. See Rheuark v. Shaw, 5 Cir. 1977, 547 F. 2d 1257, 1259; Hill v. Johnson, 5 Cir. 1976, 539 F. 2d 439, 440; Pierre v. U. S., 5 Cir. 1976, 525 F. 2d 933, 935-36.
The petitioner’s attack on the transfer to Atlanta lacks merit, Beck v. Wilkes, 5 Cir. 1979, 589 F. 2d 901, 903-04 (1979), and the Eighth Amendment allegations do not entitle him to release from custody. See Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F. 2d 9, 12-13, Konigsberg v. Ciccone, W.D.Mo.1968, 285 F.Supp. 585, 589, aff’d. 3 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 161, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 996, 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970).
For these reasons, the dismissal of the petition is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. Graham, 438 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
-
Brito Matom v. ICE / U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (M.D. Fla. 2025)
-
Bergeron v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low (M.D. Fla. 2024)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- ROE v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973)
- Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Williams v. Steele, 194 F.2d 917 (8th Cir. 1952)
- Konigsberg v. Ciccone, 397 U.S. 963 (U.S. 1970)
- Williams v. Steele, 344 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1952)
- Taylor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 344 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1952)
- Konigsberg v. Pasquale J. Ciccone, M.D., 417 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1969)
- Rheuark v. Shaw, 547 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1977)