U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1944

Sarshik v. Sanford

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 17, 1944 · Sibley, McCord, Lee

142 F.2d 676; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3482 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Herman L. Sarshik, in pro. per., M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Chapman v. Graham (Utah 1954)
Hudson v. McMillian (Supreme Court of the United States 1992)
Stroud v. Swope, Warden (9th Cir. 1951)
Dunn v. Jones (Neb. 1949)
Robert O. Gilmore, Jr., and Inmates of San Quentin State Prison, United States of America, Intervenor v. People of the State of California (9th Cir. 2000)
A. D. Granville v. W. B. Hunt (5th Cir. 1969)
Hall v. Heer (Tenn. 1966)
Ervin Albert Haas v. United States (8th Cir. 1965)
Labat v. McKeithen (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1965)
French v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1963)
Miller v. Overholser (D.C. Cir. 1953)
United States Ex Rel. Yaris v. Shaughnessy (District Court, S.D. New York 1953)
Williams v. Steele (8th Cir. 1952)
Adams v. Ellis (5th Cir. 1952)
Taylor v. United States. Taylor v. Squier, Warden (Two Cases) (9th Cir. 1950)
Dayton v. Hunter (10th Cir. 1949)
Shepherd v. Hunter (10th Cir. 1947)
State Ex Rel. Renner v. Wright (Md. 1947)
Thorp v. Clarke (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1946)
Prince v. Klune (D.C. Cir. 1945)

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.

The complaint made is that petitioner is ill, and so treated as to aggravate his illness, and especially by preventing his endeavors to help himself in the courts by legal process. On the hearing it appeared that appellant had never been disciplined and was allowed to carry on a considerable correspondence with lawyers, and that there had been no interference with his seeking this writ of habeas corpus. The courts have no function to superintend the treatment of prisoners in the penitentiary, but only to deliver from prison those who are illegally detained there. Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173. The judgment discharging the writ is affirmed.

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