NCJ Number
38688
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 125 Issue: 1 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1976) Pages: 215-233
Date Published
1976
Length
19 pages
Annotation
A PRISONER CONFINED IN ONE STATE SUBJECT TO A DETAINER ISSUED BY ANOTHER STATE CANNOT ATTACK THE DETAINER'S VALIDITY AND ITS PRESENT EFFECTS ON THE PRISONER'S CONFINEMENT IN A SINGLE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.
Abstract
THE PRISONER MUST PETITION A DISTRICT COURT IN THE DEMANDING STATE FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE DETAINER, AND ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT IN THE CONFINING STATE FOR RELIEF FROM THE PRESENT EFFECTS OF THE DETAINER. THE INABILITY OF A DISTRICT COURT IN EITHER STATE TO ADJUDICATE BOTH CLAIMS SIMULTANEOUSLY STEMS FROM ITS LACK OF IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER THE PRISONER'S CUSTODIAN IN THE OTHER STATE. AFTER OUTLINING THE HISTORY OF THE CURRENT PROCEDURE, THIS COMMENT EXAMINES MEANS BY WHICH A SINGLE COURT COULD ADJUDICATE ALL CLAIMS RELATING TO A FOREIGN DETAINER WHEN DESIRABLE TO DO SO. IT IS FOUND THAT WHETHER PROCESS CAN BE SERVED EFFECTIVELY ON AN OUT-OF-STATE CUSTODIAN DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO ATTACK THE FOREIGN DETAINER IN THE CONFINING STATE OR IN THE STATE THAT ISSUED THE DETAINER. RELYING ON A THEORY SIMILAR TO THAT EMPLOYED SUCCESSFULLY BY SOLDIERS SEEKING RELEASE FROM UNLAWFUL MILITARY COMMANDS, A PRISONER MIGHT USE THE CONFINING STATE'S LONG-ARM STATUTE TO SERVE PROCESS ON HIS FOREIGN CUSTODIAN, THEREBY ENABLING A COURT IN THE CONFINING STATE TO DETERMINE CLAIMS RELATING TO BOTH THE EFFECT AND VALIDITY OF THE DETAINER. THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE CONFINING STATE CAN THEN, IF NECESSARY FOR PRACTIAL REASONS, TRANSFER TO A DISTRICT COURT IN THE DEMANDING STATE CLAIMS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE DETAINER, WHILE RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS RELATING TO THE EFFECT OF THE DETAINER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)