Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sarshik v. Sanford

142 F.2d 676

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-05-17
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sarshik v. Sanford. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
23 opinions
SARSHIK v. SANFORD,142 F.2d 676(5th Cir. 1944)
SARSHIK v. SANFORD.
No. 10897.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 1944.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; E. Marvin Underwood, Judge.

Petition by Herman L. Sarshik against Joseph W. Sanford, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, for a writ of habeas corpus. From a judgment denying the petition,53 F. Supp. 425, the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.
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.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
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.Page 679