U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1953

Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory

Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 8, 1953 · Parker, Soper, Dobie
207 F.2d 410; 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George Robert Hurley, pro se, on brief., Richard R. Ryder, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for ap-pellee.

Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a declaratory judgment. Appellant is imprisoned in the Lorton Reformatory under the judgment and sentence of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He complains that orders made and commitments issued in connection with the judgment and sentence are void and asked the court below to so declare. We agree with the District Judge that he was without jurisdiction in the premises. If there was any irregularity in the sentence or orders under which *411 appellant was held, and we do not intimate that there was, appellant’s remedy was a motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not a petition for a declaratory judgment in another court. As was well said by Judge Watkins, speaking for the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit in Clark v. Memolo, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 174 F.2d 978, 981, “It was the primary purpose of the [Declaratory Judgment] act, [28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202] to have a declaration of rights not theretofore determined, and not to determine whether rights theretofore adjudicated have been properly adjudicated.”

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.