LEON G. SCHACK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because the petitioner failed to establish unlawful confinement entitling him to immediate release.
A state prisoner requested his complaint be mailed via certified mail with return receipt requested, but a prison official refused, offering only assu…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While incarcerated in the state prison at Raiford, Florida, he presented a complaint, addressed to Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to a prison official and asked that it be forwarded by “certified mail — return receipt requested.” The official refused but advised the prisoner that he would give assurance that the document had been mailed. Appellant objected that this would not constitute positive proof of service and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied.
Appellant contends that he has been prohibited from properly forwarding legal documents in compliance with Rule 4, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is well established that prisoners lawfully confined to state penitentiaries may be subjected to reasonable internal discipline concerning the use of the mails. Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961). However, we do not reach the question of the reasonableness of the prison official’s action in this case.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the refusal to forward prisoner’s complaint by “certified mail- — return receipt requested” was improper, the writ was properly denied. A writ of habeas corpus cannot issue if the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from his confinement. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1940); Warfield v. Raymond, 195 Md. 711, 71 A.2d 870 (1950).
*54Petitioner, appellant here, having failed to establish that he is being unlawfully confined, the order below is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schack v. State, 201 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…t also appears that the defendant has sought relief from the same judgments being considered by this court by petition for mandamus in the Circuit Court of Bradford County. The denial of relief was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 53. The petitioner also was denied habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida in September 1966. Schack v. State of Florida, Fla.1966, 192 So. 2d 492. It also appears that the defendant filed six petitions for review of his conviction in the Supre…
-
Schack v. State, 200 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 194 So. 2d 53.…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Cleio Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1941)
- LEE v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965)