Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus By - United States District Court: Fill & Download for Free

A writ petition is a filing that a party makes with an appeals court in order to secure a speedy review of some issue. Writ petitions are facets of English common law, and are used in legal systems following the common law model, including those of the United States, Australia, and India. A writ petition is essentially a court petition for extraordinary review, asking a court to intervene in a lower court’s decision.A writ means an order. A warrant is also a type of writ. Anything that is issued under an authority is a writ. In this sense, using the power conferred by Article 32, the Supreme Court issues directions, orders or writs. Article 32(3) confers the power to parliament to make law empowering any court to issue these writs. But this power has not been used and only Supreme Court by Article 32 (2) and High Courts (Article 226) can issue writs. Habeas corpus, mandamus quo warranto and certiorari are Latin words. They have different meaning and different implications. Let’s understand one by one:Writ of Habeas corpusBy Habeas corpus writ the Supreme Court or High Court can cause any person who has been detained or imprisoned (this means violation of his fundamental right to liberty) to be physically brought before the court. The court then examines the reason of his detention and if there is no legal justification of his detention, he can be set free.Is body (physical presence) compulsory?Ordinarily yes, but in Kanu Sanyal v/s District Magistrate (AIR) (1974) case the Supreme Court laid down that the physical presence is NOT a part of the writ.When the writ of Habeas corpus is issued?When the person is detained and not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours When the person is arrested without any violation of a law. When a person is arrested under a law which is unconstitutional When detention is done to harm the person or is malafide.Who can file the petition?A general rule of filing the petition is that a person whose right has been infringed must file a petition. But Habeas corpus is an exception to that. This is because, a person detained or imprisoned may be severely handicapped. So anybody on behalf of the detainee can file a petition.Is it applicable to Preventive Detention?Yes, it is applicable.What is the core philosophy of Habeas corpusTo set at liberty a person who is confined without legal justification.Can Habeas corpus issued against state and individuals?Yes, the writ can be issued against authorities of states or individuals or organizations.2. Writ of MandamusMandamus means “we order”. The Supreme Court or High Court orders to a person, coropration, lower court, public authority or state authority.What order?The order to do something. It’s a command or directive to perform something or some act.What kind of act?Performance of the ministerial acts or public duty. The Mandamus is also called a wakening call. It awakes the sleeping authority to perform their duty. It demands an acivity and sets the authority in action.Who can file a writ petition?A person can file a writ petition against anybody who seeks a legal duty from that person.What is legal duty?Legal duty means some duty which is by a law viz. constitution, act, subordinate, legislation etc.But did the person move to the authority?Yes, the petition requires that the person moved to the authority and the authority refused to do this duty. This is demand and refusal.What is the core philosophy of Mandamus?The core philosophy is that a person or authority despite of fulfillment of such conditions which demand an action refuses to act then, the Supreme Court or High Court can ask the person or authority to perform that duty. For example, if a person fulfills all the preconditions & formalities to be issued a license but still the authority refuses to issue a license even after that person approaches to that particular authority, the person may seek writ petition.What are essential conditions to file to request the court issue Mandamas writ?The person must have a real or special interest in the subject matter.The person must have specific legal rightNo other equally effective remedy is there.The third condition can be understood by the example: A person fulfils all the conditions of an appointment and the authority has completed the selection procedure then he must be issued an appointment letter. But when the authority refuses to do this duty, the person is eligible to file a writ petition under Mandamus.Please refer to continuing mandamus in commentshttps://www.quora.com/What-is-writ-petition/answer/Rudra-Dalmia/comment/24614827?srid=dRgA&share=d175d232thanks to Prachi Patil!!!3. Writ of ProhibitionThe writ of prohibition means that the supreme court and High Courts may prohibit the lower courts such as special tribunals, magistrates, commissions, and other judiciary officers who are doing something which exceeds to their jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rule of natural justice. This implies that if a judicial officer has personal interest in a case, it may hamper the decision and the course of natural justice. Writ of Prohibition means to be issued in this case.4. Writ of CertiorariCertiorari means a writ that orders to move a suit from a inferior court to superior court.5. Quo WarrantoQuo warranto means “by what warrant”? This means that Supreme Court and High Court may issue the writ which restrains the person or authority to act in an office which he / she is not entitled to. This writ is applicable to the public offices only.

Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the United States’ most beloved president, widely adored for ushering the country through the trying times of the American Civil War and abolishing slavery……also suspended habeas corpus.Now, let’s lay the groundwork. First we’ll define what habeas corpus is, for anyone who isn’t aware. In the United States, when a person is arrested by the police on suspicion of a crime, a court can issue a writ of habeas corpus—a piece of paper which requires the arresting authority to either demonstrate ample cause for the arrest (say, by filing charges) or release the detainee.Second, let’s look and see where the state of Maryland is on a map, in relation to the northern and southern United States:Yup. Smack dab in the middle.April, 1861.[1] War had broken out between the Union in the north and the Confederacy in the south. Abraham Lincoln called for the northern states to send militia troops to Washington, D.C. Naturally, any troops coming from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island had to pass through Maryland on their way to the nation’s capital. Quite a number of Marylanders were against the idea of making war on the South, and riots broke out. Mobs of angry Marylanders even attacked federal troop transports.A number of Maryland politicians were leery of war with the South. These included Thomas Hicks (the governor), George Brown (the mayor of Baltimore), and almost the entire Maryland state legislature. Fearful of further rioting and violence, the legislature voted against opening rail lines to the North. The legislature also officially petitioned President Lincoln to remove the growing numbers of federal troops piling up in their state. Lincoln refused. Governor Hicks and Mayor Brown then asked Lincoln to prevent the crossing of any more troops through Maryland. Lincoln again refused.Not long after this little incident, Lincoln asked Attorney General Edward Bates whether it would be possible to suspend habeas corpus.Edward BatesNow, I’ll grant you that Lincoln’s back was against the wall. Washington, D.C. is quite close to Virginia. The Confederate capital was in Virginia—Richmond, just a hundred miles south. Almost everything south of D.C. was Confederate territory—and the Confederate armies were massing for an attack, too. Lincoln had to get those troops to Washington. He had no time for pettifogging Maryland politicians obstructing the movement of his precious blue-clad soldiers.On April 27, 1861, Lincoln authorized Union troops to suspend habeas corpus if they encountered any resistance on the “military line” throughout Maryland.On April 29, the Maryland legislature voted against allowing federal troops to use Maryland as a highway to Washington. Governor Hicks then allegedly authorized the Maryland state militia to destroy several key railroad bridges that the Union was using to move its troops southward.Militia lieutenant John Merryman was arrested on May 25 for his role in destroying railroad bridges at the Bush and Gunpowder Rivers. He was charged with treason, taken to Fort McHenry in Baltimore, and there imprisoned.John MerrymanMerryman’s lawyers lost no time. They headed straight to Washington and barged into the offices of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and author of the infamous Dred Scott decision), demanding a writ of habeas corpus. Taney issued the writ the day after Merryman’s arrest, May 26. The writ ordered General George Cadwalader, the commander of the military district wherein Fort McHenry was located, to bring Merryman before Taney the next day, without fail.Roger B. TaneyGeneral Cadwalader sent one of his colonels to Justice Taney on May 27. The colonel bore a letter from Cadwalader explaining to Taney that, under orders from President Lincoln, the Federal Army had suspended habeas corpus in Maryland for the time being, that Merryman was being held for treason, doncha know, and for being illegally in possession of U.S. government arms, dude, and, like, advocating armed hostility against the federal government and all that jazz. Cadwalader advised Taney that these were dark and dangerous times, and it was perhaps better to err on the side of national security. Due to the complex nature of the issues at stake and the dire nature of the charges being leveled against Merryman, Cadwalader politely asked Taney for an extension so he (Cadwalader) could seek clarification from President Lincoln.George CadwaladerWell, one doesn’t just say “no” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Taney fired back the 1861 equivalent of a “Oh hell NAW you didn’t” to Cadwalader. Then the incensed Taney went one step further: he held Cadwalader to be in contempt of court. Taney ordered a U.S. Marshal to arrest Cadwalader and haul his sorry carcass up in front of Taney the next day.The marshal dutifully knocked on the door of Fort McHenry on May 28, but the sentries refused to let him in. Rumor has it that Cadwalader, earlier that day, had received orders from U.S. Army headquarters telling him to keep holding Merryman at all costs, Chief Justice Taney be damned. Whether that’s true or not, Cadwalader had decided to stand his ground. He ordered his sentries to turn the marshal away.Taney filed a written opinion with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland on June 1, 1861. In it, he put Lincoln on blast for bestowing unlimited power on himself. His wording was quite strong:These great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.The crux of Taney’s argument was that only Congress, not the President, had the right to suspend habeas corpus, and then only in the most dire of circumstances.Now, technically, Lincoln hadn’t done anything wrong. Not according to the Constitution, anyway. As Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution says:The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.Lincoln clearly thought that habeas corpus was indeed a privilege and not a right, and it could be suspended if the public safety required it, and that in this particular case, the public safety most certainly did require it. And he resented Taney for putting up a stink.Lincoln defended his suspension of habeas corpus in a speech he gave to Congress on July 4, 1861, framing the question as he saw it: a choice between strict interpretation of constitutional law, or the dissolution of the Union.The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it” is equivalent to a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.On July 10, a grand jury in Baltimore indicted Merryman for treason. The allegations were damning. Merryman was accused of “wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously” waging war upon the United States, with the assistance of 500 armed men. He was charged with destroying no fewer than six railroad bridges as well as telegraph lines, with the aim of hindering Union troops from crossing the state and severing their lines of communication. Merryman posted his $20,000 bail and was released, pending trial.But the case never came to trial. Since treason was punishable by death, it would have to be tried in a federal circuit court. At that time, Supreme Court justices also served as circuit court judges. There were only two federal judges for the U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Maryland: our good friend Roger B. Taney and another man named William F. Giles (who, interestingly enough, had had one of his own writs of habeas corpus ignored by William W. Morris, the commander of Fort McHenry, just a short time prior to the Merryman affair).But the vindictive Taney would have none of it. Though repeatedly asked to schedule hearings for the accused, Taney declined time and time again. Taney justified his obstructionism by proclaiming that neither Merryman nor anyone else who’d been indicted would get a fair trial in Maryland. (He also claimed his health was poor and this was a really bad time for him to be handing down orders from the bench, cough cough.) Taney resisted all attempts made by federal authorities to replace him and put enough pressure on Judge Giles to ensure that Giles wouldn’t hear the case by himself.This brouhaha dragged on for years. In 1864, Taney wrote: “I will not place the judicial power in this humiliating position nor consent to degrade and disgrace it, and if the district attorney presses the prosecutions I shall refuse to take them up.”Taney died in 1864, still bitter. For whatever reason, Salmon P. Chase, who became Chief Justice and circuit court judge for Maryland after Taney’s death, also refused to conduct any Merryman hearings.I’d love to be able to tie a neat bow around this story and wrap it up for you, but this is where it ends. Everything just sort of fizzled out. The war ended. Lincoln was assassinated. Merryman never saw the inside of a federal prison, let alone a gallows, and later became Maryland’s State Treasurer.But let’s stop and think about this for a moment. This is Abraham Lincoln we’re talking about. Freer of the slaves. Preserver of the Union. Savior of America. Inspirational leader, speaker, and writer. Millions of Americans’ favorite American.You can almost see the halo around his head.And yet, despite his sterling reputation as a lover of freedom, democracy, and unity, Lincoln somehow believed that he had the right to throw a man in jail indefinitely, without charges, representation, due process of law, trial, or possibility of parole. Because, in his sainted opinion, an abstract noun (“public safety”) was in jeopardy.Take a minute to let that sink in. The man who often gets the credit for freeing the slaves, the beneficent patriarch who preserved the Union and led the young United States through arguably what was its greatest moral, legal, and existential crisis, basically believed that he had the right to interpret the Constitution as he saw fit, tell the judiciary to go pound sand, and imprison anyone for any length of time during a national crisis. At his sole discretion.It’s really quite disturbing when you allow yourself to contemplate it.Footnotes[1] President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War

In fact, according to current statistics, roughly 85% of all juveniles in the system are functionally illiterate. And a full 70% of America’s prisoners are unable to read and write above a 4th grade level. Consider this while you’re contemplating that. In 1996, when Clinton was co-opting the Republican’s “tough on crime” agenda, he and his cronies (with the aforementioned statistics in hand and in mind I think), passed a law called the A.E.D.P.A.; an acronym for Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act. That law was supposed to concern itself with hastening the death penalty for terrorists by providing a time frame for the filing of any appeals or writs. Instead, they included a provision in there that set a time limit for the filing of regular appeals by all prisoners. After we in California are convicted of a crime we have a right to an appeal. The State is required to provide us with an appellate attorney. Those appellate attorney’s are usually the worse kinds of attorneys. Can’t get a job with any other but the State because they are incompetent. Anyway, they usually come visit you once or twice to get your side of the story. They file your appeal after a few months in the next highest court. In California that is the California Court of Appeal. After it is denied there they MIGHT file a Petition for Review on your behalf in the California Supreme Court. Once THAT Petition is denied (and it’s denied in almost every case; there’s only about a 4% success rate), you are on your own. At that point the AEDPA gives a prisoner exactly one-year from the date of denial to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. That is something a prisoner must do on his own unless his family has money. Most prisoner families have no money. So here they are with a 4th grade reading and writing level and they are expected to put together a comprehensive Writ using legal terminology and outlining any Constitutional claims properly. Then they have to know how and where to file in State court to exhaust their State court remedies. Once those claims are filed and denied in the Supreme Court of California they have to use different forms to file their appeals in the U.S. District Court (the first Federal Appellate Court), then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, lastly, the United States Supreme Court. Can you believe they expect someone who reads and writes on a 4th grade level, with minimal comprehension skills, to be able to do all this on their own? I couldn’t believe it either. Which led me to conclude that they passed that law to ensure that the greatest number of prisoners STAY convicted. It’s shameful, but I guess I understand why they did that.