Dewey William Carson v. Executive Director, Department of Parole
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Henry (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)
- Gregory v. Page (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1968)
- Butson v. Chairman, US Parole Com'n (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1978)
- Sable v. State of Ohio (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1977)
- Gaches v. THIRD JUDICIAL DIST., ETC., STATE OF UTAH (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1976)
- Fronczak v. WARDEN, EL RENO REFORMATORY, ETC. (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1976)
- Barr v. United States (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1976)
- Harkins v. Lauf (Mo. 1976)
- Harness v. Day (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1976)
- Washington v. Anderson (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1974)
- Brown v. Daggett (8th Cir. 1972)
- Arthur E. Small, Jr. v. United States Board of Parole (10th Cir. 1970)
- Ott v. Ciccone (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1970)
- Brown v. State (Mo. 1970)
- Glancy v. Parole Board of the Michigan Department of Corrections (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1968)
- James D. Booker v. State of Arkansas (8th Cir. 1967)
- United States Ex Rel. Masucci v. Follette (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
- Marvin J. Opheim v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1966)
- Buck Mingo v. United States (10th Cir. 1965)
- H. J. Jones v. J. C. Taylor, Warden United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas,appellee (10th Cir. 1964)
- Troyan v. United States Government (District Court, D. Kansas 1964)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant-plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
While an inmate of Leavenworth Penitentiary, serving a federal sentence, he brought this action to prevent a detainer being filed against him by defendant, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Parole, for alleged violation of a previous state parole.
It is first argued that filing of the detainer is an impermissible encroachment upon federal jurisdiction which is exclusive until its processes have been exhausted. And secondly, that the detainer operates to unlawfully and prejudicially deprive him of certain rehabilitative privileges, such as parole, accorded by federal law.
A prisoner may not, however, complain of the filing of a state detainer as a usurpation of federal jurisdiction over him, for “either the federal or a state government may voluntarily surrender its prisoner to the other without the consent of the prisoner, and * * the question of jurisdiction and custody is purely one of comity between the two sovereigns, not a personal right of the prisoner * * Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 865, 866. See also Rosenthal v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 164 F.2d *469 949; Ramsey v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 532. And this is so even though the detainer results in his ineligibility for parole, for parole is a privilege, the lawful deprivation of which does not impinge upon any constitutional right. Singleton v. Looney, 10 Cir., 218 F.2d 526. See also Latham v. United States, 5 Cir., 259 F.2d 393.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.