Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 (1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 (1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
131 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Martínez Cruz (prsupreme, 2006-05-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Martínez Cruz
prsupreme · 2006 · confidence medium
En South Carolina v. Bailey, ante, pág. 420, se indicó: “It was wholly beyond the province of the judge to speculate, as he seems to have done, concerning the probable outcome of any trial which might follow rendition to the demanding state.” (Én- fasis nuestro.) Véanse, además: Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86, 87 (1980); Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 (1952).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Walton
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
(Pacileo v. Walker (1980) 449 U.S. 86, 88 [ 101 S.Ct. 308, 309 , 66 L.Ed.2d 304 ] [challenge to prison conditions in demanding state must be tried in the courts of that state]; Sweeney v. Woodall, supra, 344 U.S. 86, 90 [ 73 S.Ct. 139, 140-141 ] [same]; see Puerto Rico v. Branstad, supra, 483 U.S. 219, 227 [ 107 S.Ct. 2802, 2807-2808 , 97 L.Ed.2d 187 ] [commands of the extradition clause of the United States Constitution are mandatory].) Beyond the four “readily verifiable questions”—whether the extradition documents are facially valid, whether the petitioner has been charged with a crim…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1987 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
To obtain habeas relief, “[tjhere must be objections which reach deeper into the indictment than those which would be good against it in the court where it is pending.” Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S., at 401 ; cf. Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U. S. 86, 87-88 (1980) (per curiam) (California Supreme Court erred in granting habeas relief to fugitive by directing its Superior Court to determine whether prison conditions in demanding State violated Eighth Amendment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alabama v. Battles
SCOTUS · 1981 · confidence medium
Instead, the asylum state may consider only “ ‘(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive.’” Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U. S. 86, 87 (1980), quoting Doran, supra, at 289 .
discussed Cited "see" In Re OM (2×)
D.C. · 1989 · signal: accord · confidence high
"Considerations fundamental to our federal system require that [appellant] test the claimed unconstitutionality of his treatment by Alabama in the courts of that state." Sweeney v. Woodall, supra, 344 U.S. at 90 , 73 S.Ct. at 140 ; accord, e.g., Pacileo v. Walker, supra, 449 U.S. at 88 , 101 S.Ct. at 309 .
discussed Cited "see" In re O.M. (2×)
D.C. · 1989 · signal: accord · confidence high
“Considerations fundamental to our federal system require that [appellant] test the claimed unconstitutionality of his treatment by Alabama in the courts of that state.” Sweeney v. Woodall, supra, 344 U.S. at 90 , 73 S.Ct. at 140 ; accord, e.g., Pacileo v. Walker, supra, 449 U.S. at 88 , 101 S.Ct. at 309 .
examined Cited "see" Engel v. Bourbeau (3×)
Conn. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
App. 1981); see generally Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 , 101 S. Ct. 308 , 66 L.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Honorable Jim R. Carrigan, United States v. Daniel G. Landry, United States v. Otis Elevator Company and Daniel G. Landry
10th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. 449 U.S. at 86, 101 S.Ct. at 190.
discussed Cited "see" Wolfe v. Au
Haw. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86, 87-88 (1980), reh’g denied, 450 U.S. 960 (1981); Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. at 287-88 ; Murray v. Burns, 48 Haw. at 516-17 , 405 P.2d at 315 ; see also note 3 supra. Nor could we have assumed from a mere absence of independent status that the federal-state rendition scheme applied in this instance; for “federal legislation is not automatically applicable to the Trust Territory.
cited Cited "see" Whitehouse
Mass. App. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86, 87 (1980) (percuriam); Alabama v. Battles, 452 U.S. 920 (1981) (Burger, C.J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Upton, petitioner, 387 Mass. at 361 .
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Wayne County Sheriff (2×)
Mich. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See 449 US 86 -87.
discussed Cited "see" William Pfaff and Patrick Pfaff v. Gene Wells, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma
10th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pacileo v. Walker, supra,-U.S. at---, 101 S.Ct. at 308-309 (convicted felon not permitted to raise Eighth Amendment claim in state court to prevent extradition); Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 , 73 S.Ct. 139 , 97 L.Ed. 114 (convicted felon not permitted to raise Eighth Amendment claim in federal court in asylum state to prevent extradition); State ex rel.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Golden v. Dupnik (3×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
McDonald v. Burrows, 731 F.2d 294 (5th Cir.1984); see also, Michigan v. Doran, supra, and Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 , 101 S.Ct. 308 , 66 L.Ed.2d 304 , reh. den. 450 U.S. 960 , 101 S.Ct. 1421 , 67 L.Ed.2d 385 (1980).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Ellerman v. State (3×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 , 101 S.Ct. 308 , 66 L.Ed.2d 304 (1980) (the asylum state may not inquire into the constitutionality of conditions of confinement in the demanding state).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States Ex Rel. McInery v. Shelley (3×)
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86 , 101 S.Ct. 308 , 66 L.Ed.2d 304 (1980), rehearing denied, 450 U.S. 960 , 101 S.Ct. 1421 , 67 L.Ed.2d 385 (1981). 9 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pacileo, Sheriff
v.
Walker
79-2040.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1981.
449 U.S. 86
Marshall.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The United States Constitution provides that “[a] person charged in any State with Treason, Felony or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.” Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2.

In this case, there is no dispute as to the facts necessary to resolve the legal question presented. In 1975, respondent James Dean Walker escaped from the Arkansas Department of Corrections and remained at large until he was apprehended in California in 1979. In December 1979, the Governor of Arkansas requested the arrest and rendition of respondent, alleging that respondent was a fugitive from[*87] justice. In February 1980, the Governor of California honored the request of the Governor of Arkansas and duly issued a warrant of arrest and rendition. This warrant was then served upon respondent by the Sheriff of El Dorado County, Cal. Respondent thereafter challenged the Governor’s issuance of the warrant in both state and federal courts. He was unsuccessful until he reached the Supreme Court of California, which, on April 9, 1980, issued a writ of habeas corpus directing the Superior Court of El Dorado County to “conduct hearings to determine if the penitentiary in which Arkansas seeks to confine petitioner is presently operated in conformance with the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and thereafter to decide the petition on its merits.”

Petitioner Sheriff contends that Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and its implementing statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3182, do not give the courts of the “asylum” or “sending” State authority to inquire into the prison conditions of the “demanding” State. We agree. In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (1978), our most recent pronouncement on the subject, we stated that “[interstate extradition was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding derived from the language of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.” Id., at 288. We further stated:

“A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. . . . Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. These are historic facts readily verifiable.” Id., at '289.

[*88] In Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86 (1952), this Court held that a fugitive from Alabama could not raise in the federal courts of Ohio, the asylum State, the constitutionality of his confinement in Alabama. We stated:

“Considerations fundamental to our federal system require that the prisoner test the claimed unconstitutionality of his treatment by Alabama in the courts of that State. Respondent should be required to initiate his suit in the courts of Alabama, where all parties may be heard, where all pertinent testimony will be readily available, and where suitable relief, if any is necessary, may be fashioned.” Id., at 90.

We think that the Supreme Court of California ignored the teachings of these cases when it directed one of its own trial courts of general jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the present conditions of the Arkansas penal system. Once the Governor of California issued the warrant for arrest and rendition in response to the request of the Governor of Arkansas, claims as to constitutional defects in the Arkansas penal system should be heard in the courts of Arkansas, not those of California. “To allow plenary review in the asylum state of issues that can be fully litigated in the charging state would defeat the plain purposes of the summary and mandatory procedures authorized by Art. IV, § 2.” Michigan v. Doran, supra, at 290.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Dissent

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Because Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (1978), did not involve a claimed violation of the Eighth Amendment, and[*89] because Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86 (1952), did not involve a state court’s decision to grant state habeas corpus relief, I do not believe that they control the question raised here, and I would set the case for plenary review.