Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942). · Go Syfert
Search
Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Swanson v. Warden (ilsd, 2024-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1944 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1944 1985 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 18 U.S.C. § 753a cited 1× in this case · 6 total citations of statute #14 28 U.S.C. § 452 cited 1× in this case · 107 total citations of statute #4 28 U.S.C. § 458 cited 1× in this case · 51 total citations of statute #7 28 U.S.C. § 454 cited 1× in this case · 72 total citations of statute #3 28 U.S.C. § 456 cited 1× in this case · 30 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Swanson v. Warden
S.D. Ill. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cir. 1945); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 1942)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moon v. United States
D.S.D. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cir. 1945); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 1942)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moon v. United States
S.D. Ill. · 2024 · confidence medium
Cir. 1945); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 1942)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2×)
SCOTUS · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F. 3d 189, 190 (CA7 1996); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F. 2d 378, 379 (CA9 1992); Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F. 2d 1487, 1491-1492 (CA10 1991) ( per curiam ); Brennan v. Cunningham, 813 F. 2d 1, 12 (CA1 1987); Guerra v. Meese, 786 F. 2d 414, 416 (CADC 1986) ( per curiam ); Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F. 2d 938 , 948 (CA2 1976); Sanders v. Bennett, 148 F. 2d 19, 20 (CADC 1945); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F. 2d 853, 854 (CA8 1942). [8] No exceptions to this rule, either recognized *436 [9] or proposed, see post, at 454 (KENNEDY, J., concurring), app…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Al-Marri, Ali Saleh v. Rumsfeld, Donald
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 691 (1st Cir. 2000); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994); In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922 , 925 & n.2 (6th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 1942); Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1491-92 (10th Cir. 1991); Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri v. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, and M.A. Marr, Commander, Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 691 (1st Cir.2000); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir.1994); In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922 , 925 & n. 2 (6th Cir.1997); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.1942); Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1491-92 (10th Cir.1991); Gue rra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Julio E. Roman v. John Ashcroft (6×)
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
In the context of prisoners, courts have rejected the notion of the Attorney General as respondent because although he has supervisory and regulatory custody of all federal prisoners, “it is apparent that ... he does not have actual physical custody of a prisoner who is confined in a federal prison or other federal institution.” Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 784 , 63 S.Ct. 856 , 87 L.Ed. 1152 (1943).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Roman v. Ashcroft (3×)
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
In the context of prisoners, courts have rejected an exception to the immediate custodian rule by concluding the notion of the Attorney General as respondent because that the Attorney General can be considered Roman’s although he has supervisory and regulatory custody of all custodian and thus a proper respondent to Roman’s petition. federal prisoners, “it is apparent that . . . he does not have actual physical custody of a prisoner who is confined in a The district court below declined to apply the immediate federal prison or other federal institution.” Jones v. Biddle, custodian rule…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vasquez v. Reno
1st Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
E.g., Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1491-92 (10th Cir.1991) (per curiam); Brennan v. Cunningham, 813 F.2d 1, 12 (1st Cir.1987); Monk v. Secretary of Navy, 793 F.2d 364, 368-69 (D.C.Cir.1986); Guerra, 786 F.2d at 416 ; Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938 , 948 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. DiRusso, 535 F.2d 673, 676 (1st Cir.1976); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.1942).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank Lewis v. U.S. Attorney U.S. Marshal, and New Mexico Department of Corrections
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir.1995); Moore v. United States, 339 F.2d 448, 448 (10th Cir.1964); Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir.1976); King v. California, 356 F.2d 950, 950 (9th Cir.1966); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 784 (1943); Moles v. Oklahoma, 384 F.Supp. 1148, 1150 (W.D.Okla.1974); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) ("The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morin v. Grade
W.D. Wis. · 1969 · confidence medium
Goodman v. Roberts, 152 F.2d 841, 842 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 328 U.S. 873 , 66 S.Ct. 1377 , 90 L.Ed. 1642 (1946); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.1942) cert. denied 318 U.S. 784 , 63 S.Ct. 856 , 87 L.Ed. 1152 (1943).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gilbert v. State
Tex. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
Elliott v. Hendricks, 213 F.2d 922, 926 (3rd Cir.); Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir.).
discussed Cited "see" Wells v. Philbrick
D.S.D. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942), cert. den. 318 U.S. 784 , 63 S.Ct. 856 , 87 L.Ed. 1152 (1943); Johnson v. State, 283 F.Supp. 494 (S.D.Fla.1968); Osborn v. Commonwealth, 277 F.Supp. 756 (W.D.
cited Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. Toran v. Thompson, Warden
2d Cir. · 1951 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 131 F.2d 853 , certiorari denied 318 U.S. 784 , 63 S.Ct. 856 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lawrence v. Henderson
E.D. La. · 1972 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. Florida
S.D. Fla. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JONES
v.
BIDDLE, Atty. Gen.
12334.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 14, 1942.
131 F.2d 853
Joseph E. Jones, pro se., Otto Schmid, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Stone Sanborn, and Riddick, Circuit Judges.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published
[*854] SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The appellant (who will be referred to as petitioner) filed an application .for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below, naming Hon. Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the United States, as respondent. Petitioner is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. His application, in substance, asserts that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty, because the commutation of his sentence, to which he is entitled for good behavior, has been wrongfully denied, and that he became entitled to release on August 26, 1941.

The respondent (appellee) made a motion to dismiss the application upon the ground that the petitioner was not, and had not been, in the respondent’s custody. This motion was granted, and the application was dismissed.

The petitioner has appealed from the order dismissing his application. In his brief he offers no explanation or justification for naming the Attorney General as respondent.

The appellant is mistaken in believing that he is in the actual physical custody of the respondent and that the court below has jurisdiction to require the respondent, who is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, to produce the body of the petitioner. The statutes relating to habeas corpus manifestly contemplate that the respondent named in an application, for Habeas corpus shall be the person, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, who has the physical custody of the person of the petitioner and who is capable of producing him in court. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App. D.C. 307, 100 F.2d 717, 718. The power of a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus is limited to its territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 452; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230, 233; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 307, 100 F.2d 717. Compare, In re Boles, 8 Cir., 48 F. 75, 76. “The writ shall be directed to the person in whose custody the party is detained.” 28 U.S. C.A. § 455. There must be a prompt return to the writ (28 U.S.C.A. § 456), and the person making the return must produce the body of the petitioner before the judge who granted the writ. 28 U.S.C.A. § 458.

While the prisons of the United States and the custody of federal prisoners under sentence are generally under the supervision of the Attorney General (Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 256, 262, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879), the actual management of such prisons and the care of prisoners is delegated to the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C.A. § 753a. It is, no doubt, true that, in a sense, all federal prisoners under sentence are in the custody of the Attorney General, but it is apparent that his custody of them is supervisory and regulatory, and that he does not have actual physical custody of a prisoner who is confined in a federal prison or other federal institution. See Galatas v. United States, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 15, 18, 19.

The petitioner should have named the Warden of the Medical Center as respondent and should have alleged in the application for a writ of habeas corpus that he (petitioner) was in the custody of the Warden of that institution. See 28 U.S. C.A. § 454.

The order appealed from is affirmed.