Earl Spigner, Aka Daniel Lovall Spigner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 452 F.2d 1208 (9th Cir. 1971)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (December 22, 1971)

Docket number: 71-2300


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/earl-spigner-aka-daniel-lovall-36754917
Id. vLex: VLEX-36754917

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Tony R. Jake, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.L. Herschberger, Warden, Adx-Florence, Florence, Colorado, Respondent-Appellee., 173 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir. 1999)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Charles F. Smith, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States Parole Commission; U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees., 875 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1989)

Text:

Earl Spigner, in pro. per.

Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Acting Chief, Crim. Div., Shelby R. Gott, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Spigner is now serving a term of six years in a federal penitentiary for a narcotics offense. The sentence was imposed May 2, 1966. He was admitted to bail pending appeal, and his federal appellate efforts were not exhausted until March 20, 1967. Apparently someone neglected to take him into custody during the ensuing 13 months.

Concurrently with his federal troubles, he was having California state troubles. There he was sentenced on a burglary charge on May 20, 1966, but he was on state liberty until April 24, 1968, when he exhausted his state appellate efforts. Spigner's state sentence provided he could receive state credit for time he spent serving his federal sentence. But while federal authorities slept, California picked him up. Now he has finished his state sentence and has been taken to a federal penitentiary to serve his narcotics sentence.

Now he complains the federal authorities had a duty to pick him up between April 24, 1967, and April 24, 1968, so he could get credit on his state sentence. The condition of the state sentence was a privilege of which he knew and could have availed himself. He did not. He wants the federal courts to give him credit on his federal sentence for state time served.

It is an interesting concept that one may sue the federal government for not taking one into custody. We reject it here.

The district court order denying relief is affirmed. Cf. Application of Nelson, 8 Cir., 434 F.2d 748, and Opela v. United States, 5 Cir., 415 F.2d 231.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access