Notice of Filing Motion for Relief from Judgment in the District Court

    MAGGIE S.

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

B0zEMAN,

Petitioner,

vs.

3AL0N M. trAMBERT, €t &1.,

ResPondents.

STATES COURT OF APPEATS
ETEVENTH CIRCUIT

N0. 84-7286

NOTICE OF I'I].,ING MOTIONro r}{

Appellants-respondents hereby notify this Eonorable

Court that, otr June 12, 1984, they filed a I'l{otion for Re1ief

fron Juclguent" purusant to Rule 50(b), F.R.C.P. ' ln the

clistriet court in this aetion.

A eopy of said notion and the supporting brief are

attached. hereto.

Appellants further request that this court take no

action on this appeal until the tllstrict court has ruled' on

F. 2dthe rnotion. Egg, lairsey v. Aclvance Abrasives co. , 542

928, gr2, (ltt cir. 1975); Parrott v' Yilson, 7o7 F'2d

(rttir cir. 1985)(n. 8).

Respectfully subnitted' tyris gl aay of Ju1y, 1984'

1 262

ADDRESS OT COUNSEI,:

c/o Attorney Generalre Annex
659 S. larrence Street
Montgonery, Alabana 56104
(zos) 171-Gr51

ru, .E/,,"o
ATIORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS



CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certtfy that I have this bl ury or

1 984, eerved I copy of the foregolng on the attorneys

Petltloner by placlng sarre 1n the Unlted States na1l,

prepald and addressed &s follore:
Yanzetta Penn Durant
Attorney at Lar
559 l{artha Street
Itlontgonery, AL 55104

Lanl Gutnler
Attoruey at lav
99 Eudson Street
I 5th Floor
I[ev York, Iff 1001,

Ju1y,

for the

poetage

2



a?

IEMAGG

vs.

EALO

IN THI| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

rIIE r'1 r 
"*8dtffifi '31'?l rAr'ABAMA

'g[ Jt]ii I I Ph r{ I t
s. BoZEMAN, )

)
Petitioner, Cj t.( )

u' s' !it ' -' t-t^'J'"Etvrr ACrroN No. 8r-E-5?9-Nlt !!.r 
) -.

. LAMBERT, et &1., )
)

Respondents. )

NM

MOTION I'OR RELIEF T'ROM JUDGMENT

Respondents move this Eonorable Court to vacate and set

asi.tte the flnaI Judgnent entered ln thls cause on April 15,

1 984 and to diemlss the Petition against the responclents !n

that it now appears that this Court lackecl jurlsdi.ctlon to

enter saj.ct final Judgnent. As grounds' reapondents show as

follows:
.t . This notion ls natle pursuant to Rule 5O(b) of the

Fecleral Rules of C1v11 Proceclure, speciflcally 50(b) (1 ) '
50(b) (+), 50(b) (l) and 50(b) (5).

2. This ls a Habeas corpus proceecti.ng pursuant to 28

U.S.c. Szzql et. seq.

S.AnappllcationforatlrltofEabeasCorpusnust
a1lege the name of the applicant's custotlian. 28 U.S. C. $

2242. The wrlt or the ortler to show eause rnust be tllrected



to the petltloner's cuetotllan. 28 rJ.S.C. $2243. the vrit

may not iesue unless the petitioner j.e 1n custody. 28 U.S.C.

$zzqt .

4, In this ease, the petltloner nistakenly names as

respondents Ealon trambert, Jack llufkin, John Porter, and Ted

Butler. lilr. Butler ls a parole officer; the other three are

the nembers of the Boarcl of Pardons and Paroles'

5. A prisoner of the State of Alabama, although on

parole, remains 1n the }egal eustocly of the warden of the

prison fron which he is parolecl until the expi.ration of the

term of hie sentence. $1 5-22-25 of the Code of Alabana'

1975.

6. Neither the warclen of the pri.son nor any sheriff nor

any police chief yas ever naned as respondent nor eerved vlth

proeess ln this actlon. Neither d1d the proPer eustodian

enter an appearance in this cause.

7. Where the petitionerrs custod:.an ls not narnecl or

served wlth process and does not appear to defend, the court

is wlthout Juristliction to enter an order granting the vrit

of habeas corpus.

8. A brlef ln support of this notion will be filed uith

this court tomorrow.



}|HEREFORE, reEponalentE move thie Hcnorable Court to

vacete and Bet aslde the Judguent grantlnS the vrit of habeas

eorpus; end to d|enles the petltlon based upon the pleadi'nge;

or to direet the petltloner to anendl the appllcatlon or

otherulse obtaln Berviee upon the custotlian; or for euch

other rellef as 1a proper ancl Just '

Respectfurry subnitted thle //fr a"y of June, 1984.

AlTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS

,



IN THE IINITED STATES DISTRICT COIIRT

tir r,trootE-DIST-Rrcr 0F ALABAI'IA
NORTHTFf, DIVISION

FOR

T,IAGGIE S.

vs.

EATOI{ M.

'BrrJrii l? F[.rr ?3BoZEMAN, 
I

Petltloner, c' -i )
U. S. D .' - ^),,,,-s ' , ,J,lerlu

LAI{BERT, €t 41. , )

Respondente. t

ACTION NO. 8r-H-579-N

BRIXF IN SU?PORT OF RESPqIIPEIIIP=J

eubnlt thle brlef ln support of the I'lotlon

Judguent flIed yesterday, June 11' 1984'
ResPond'ents

for Re1lef fron

I. Introductlon

Thepetltloner,t{aggleBozeman,flledthlshabeascorpus

aetlonnarnlngthewrongpeopleasrespontlents.Underetate
statutorylawandfederalcaaelav,t{s.Bozeman'scustodlan
atthetlmeofflllngthepetltlonUasthevardenofthe
prleon from vhlch ehe uas Paroled'

ThefalluretoBervethecuetodlanlsaJurlsdlctlonal

defectl antt cannot be valved '

lThe usual c1vll law ternlnology-lnc1ud1ng t!" terns

"subJect-nattei-JEi"ii:l-toi; Ii'a "jurlsdietlon over the

DerBon,, 1111 "L"!i"" 
llttIe atientr6n 1n thle brlef' llhose

ffi:i; al^iit';;;;;; ,itr, ""lii""iiv ln-the oplnlons on thle
subJeet, "pp"""i[Iy 

becauee itre nature of habeas corpuB tloes

;;i"i;;a ltielf to- the dletlnctlon'



rt le axlonatl. ;custody" le a requlelte for any

eonvlct rlehlng to obtaln rellef under the federal habeae

eorpus etatutes.

Deeplte the vllllngness of- eourts 1n re-
ceni years to broaden the concept of
t'cuetoiy" beyond the elmple status of
present lnprieonnent, I eltatlons orolt-
ied], lt strrr renalns an essentlal as-
p""i of the habeas corpus fllt that 1t
aets 'uDon the person wh-o holds [ttre pr1:
soner] in uhat is a)-leged to be unlanful
cuetodY. n

(za clr. 1976) (c1t1nBt LLl.t
Court, 410 U.S. 48,4,494-95,

Bt11ltert v' unlted states Boelq-d--Parole.' 541 r"2d 958' 948

Braden v. JOth Judlc1a1 Clrcult

95 s.ct. 1125, 1129, 35 i,-Ed.2d

44r,452 [tgz:]).
Further, deeplte the radleal ehanges rrought by recent

Suprene Court oplnloner2 tt remalns lnperatlve that the

Dlstrlct Court have the proper eugtodlan before lt when 1t

entertains the aPPllcatlon for the rrit. BLlLtterl, 9.lrIrg'

541 T.2A 938 (ea clr. 19?5); oleon v. Callfornta Adu1t

Irtorehead v. Ca1lforn1a, ,rg f .2A 170 (9ttr CLr. 1964); Bohro

Authorltv, 423 F.2d 1126 (gtn clr')
q14 (tqZO): Klns v. Callfornla, t56

2}".c... Carafas v. IaVallee,
r,ffiia

, gL. genled, ,98 U.S'

F. 2A 950 ( gttr clr . t 965) ;

s.ct. 1556, 20
u.s. 255, e',91 U.S.

Cunnln
s.ct. ,71, 9 L.Ed.2d-28

2r4, 88



v. Aladka, 5ZO I'.2d 851 (gttr Clr. 1955)i Gregg v. Tennessee,

425 F.supp- ,94 (8.D. Tenn. 19?5); llolee v' Oklahoma, 584

F.Supp. 1148 (W.0. 0k1a. t974); Hopklne v. Clty of ChleaSo'

,58 I'.Supp. 12OZ (N.D. I11. 1975); osborn v. CoEoonrealth'

277 F.Supp. 755 (W.D. Pa. 1975); ItlcGowan v. Neu York State

Dlvlslon of Parole, 2rg P.Supp- 622 (s.0. I{.Y. 1955).

In BlLlttert, 9ll!!9, a federal lnmate sued the U'S'

Board of Parole, ttenandlng hls reLease. Ehree Dletrlct Court

oplnlons laterrJ th" Judge ordered hte release on parole. 0n

Appeal, the Seeond Clrcult panel held aa follors:
Tltle 28 U.S.C. $2242 provi'tlee that an

appllcatlon for a rrlt of habeas corpug
elirr ,nane . . . the person vho- has

"""toay over" the petltloner, anq 52245
provLdLe that the urlt, oI order to ehow
eauee, nehall be dlrected to the person
havLng custocly of the Person detaLned.'

In the preeent caae, Bl1llterl'e cua-
tocllan throughout the dletrlct court
lltlgatlon Yas the llarden at the Federal
Penltentlary at l,evlsburg, Pennsylvanla,
rhere 311-llterL vas lncarcerated. Ihe
Warden, houever, raE never named aB a re-
epondent ln the proceetllngs. . - The Board
o? Parol-e, vhleh Yag ao aa.ned ' ras not
Bllllterl r e cuetotllan.

5"B111lterl f," ,A5 F.Supp. 1217 (Y=D.
rrmi. 260 (Y.p.-N:Y. tg75);
rSuip . 4oz 1il.0. N.Y. 1975).

[.Y. 1974); B11llterl

,

Bl1ltterf IIITF



It uould have lnpoeed no great hardehlp
on Bl1ltterl to hive brought h1e aetlon
agalnst the tlarden 1n the l'I1ddle Dletrlct
oi Pennsylvanla, as he ehould have done'
As he aia not, the present eaae must be
dlsElesed for leck of Jurledlctlon over
Bn appllcatlon for a vrlt of habeas cor-
puer-itrtetr 1s the only approprlate treans
?or-testlng out hle clalns to achi'eve the
sPeclal rellef requested.

Bl1llterl , 541 F.2d at 948.

As thle court v111 note on a fu1I revlev of

there are dletlnctlone betyeen that ease and the

but they are dlatlnetlons wlthout dlfferenc€B'

holdlng ras grounded squarely upon the fallure

to obtaln gervlce on hls eustodLan.

Blll1terl,
one at bar,

The 81111tert

of the sultor

III. Hor ls the "Cuetodlan" Deterlnlned?

fn deternlnlng the ldentlty of the cuetodlan ln a habeas

aetlon untler sectlon 2254, 1t le proper to look to state IaY'

Jones v. Cunnlnghan, 171 U-S. 235, 85 S'Ct' 57t, 9 L'Ed'2d

ZB5 (1g5r)(rhere the Court'e rullng on the custodlan queetlon

vas baged upon a Ylrgi.nla etatute).

In }IcGoran v. ![er York State Dlvlsloq of Parole, 239

f'.Supp. 522 (S.0. F.Y. 1955), the habeas petltloner sued for

hls release, narnlng the parole people as respontlente' The

dletrlct court tllemlssed the petltlon beeause the convlet,

although.on PlrroLe, renaLned ln the cuetody of hle last

prleon varclen by vlrtue of a etate statute. ltlcGosan, 2r9

F.Supp.at624.0nth1s1ssue,@1eona11foureylth



the ease case at bar. Ihe relevant portlon of sectlon

15-22-26 of the Alabama Code reade eB followe:

If the board ehall 8o deternlne, euch
prleoner shall be alloved to- 8o upgn pa-
iole outelde of prleon walle and en-
cloeure upon eueh terme and contlltlone as
the board'shaU preecribe, but to renain
vhlle thua on paiole ln the 1ega1 cuetody
of the varden -of the prleon fron rhleh he
ie paroled untll the- explratlon of the
narinun tern epeclfleat ln hle eentence or
untll he ls fullY Partloned '

ldlth the exceptlon of the last phraser'or untll he ls

fu1Ly pardoned" antl the epelIlng of 'enclosuf€r' the New York

etatute that deternlned tieGoran ls ldentical to the Alabana

etatute above. IlcGowaq, 2r9 P'Supp' at 624' See aleo

Sumuere v. State , 15 So.2d 5O0, 5O1-O2 (Ala'App'),

denled , 15 so.2d 5o2 (Ala. 1945).

rv. Can Iraek of Jurledletlon 0ver ttrg-sggtodfan
e ualve a1lure to uDlect-t

If lt le clear that !te. Bozenan ought to have sued a

varden rather than the pardone and parolee peoplet more

dlfflcult questlone renain: (1) Can the clefect be ralved by

the respondent,4 
"116 

(2) vhat ls the renedy vhere the tlefect

ls dlecovered after BuBnery judgnent and notlee of appeal?

4obv1ously,
havlng been

the ncustodlan'
served and never

hasnrt valved anYthlngr never
havlng appeared.

cert.



The latter questlon v111 be addreseed on sectlon V of thle

b rlef.
In conelderlng the lmportance of the Presence of the

real euetodlan, the Suprene Court hae recently etated:

The vrlt of habeae corpus doee not aet
upon the prleoner vho seeks rellef' blt
ulon the p6reon rho holds h1m ln rhat 1s
at)-eged to be unlarful custody. l{al-es v'
Hhltiev. 1 1 4 U. S. 564, 574, 2b L-EffiT;
ffi:U+. 1o5o (1885). rn the classlc
statement:

"The lnportant faet to be observed ln
regard to the mode of procedure-upon
thle vrlt ls, that lt 1e dlrected to'
and serveil upon, not the person con-
flned, but hle Jal1er. It does not
reach the forner except through the
latter. The offlcer or Person uho
servea lt tloes not unbar the prleon
doore, and eet the Prleoner free, but
the i:ourt relleves - hln by conpelllng
the oppressor to releese hts con-
stratili. The vhole force of the vrlt
ls spent upon the respondent.n In the
llatter of .faetson, 15 l{lch. 41 774TF
md rtth approval ln II
""ti Bna6', 523 u. s. 282,- io6, 89 r,.Et

lct. 208 (t9++).

Braden, Bupra, at 410 u.S- 494-95, 75 L.Ed '2d' 452

(underllnlng added) -

Influenced by thte sort of thlnklng for at least a

century, noet of the federal courts thai have consldered the

queetlon have held that eervlce upon the eustodlan 1s a

Jurlsdletlonal requlslte antl cannot be valved by the

aurrogate reePondent.

6



In B1lltter1, E3jg, the court eoneldered the

custodlsn'8 presence so t'Jurtedtetlonal" that It reversed a

Lot of palnstaklng work by the dletrlct court and dlsnlesed

the petltlon. Accord, @, E3!I9, 42, l'2A at 1r25i 5Lg9'

, ,56 F.Za, at 950 (vhere the cuetodlan le not named or

served, the error ls'fatal" to the vrlt);Osbornr Bupra' 277

F.Supp. at 755 (fallure to allege the name of the cuetodlan

Ls "fataI" ) ; Irtoles, -gpg, ,84 f . SuPp- at 1 1 50 (rhere

petttloner tloee not nane the cuetodlan, "[the] court has no

Jurlsdlctlon to conslaler Itfre] actlon."); eee a1eo,

Hopklne v. CltY of Chieago' .W,.
In Bohn v. ALaska, 52O F.2d 851 (9ttr C1r. 1955), the

alstrlct court, apparently vlthout an obJectlon to the

fallure to na.Be the cuetodlanr5 ttlemlesed the habeas petltlon

on the nerlte. Eorever, the Nlnth clrcult panel afflrmed the

dlsnlssal on the grountl that petltloner had falIed to aue hle

varden, neeessarlly ftaplylng a rul-e a8alnst ralver. IL' at

85?.

Flnal1y, the suprene court has ruled that a respondent

cannot valve, glsg vlIllngly, a Jurledletlonal restrletlon

placed upon the rlletrlet court by congress. Ahrens v. clark'

5fne appellate oplnlon Bakes no nentlon of any obJeetlons at
the trlal level.



1r5 U.S. 188, 1gr, 58 S.Ct. 144r, 92 !'Ed'2d 1898' 1901

(1948) (epeaflng epeclflcally of terrltorlal Jurledictlon)'

Reepontlente recognlze that none of the above declslons

yere nade ln the preclee context that nov confronte thls

court.6 But vhlle en earller obJectlon ,,ay have been Eore

elegant, the polnt of the foregolng oplnlone ls that

Jurlsdlctlon over the proper euetodlan cannot be valved''

lfhether the obJeetlon le nade for the flrst tlne ln response

to the ehow cause orrler r of on appeaJ-, Or On a l{otlon for

Rellef fron Jud.gnent the eaBe ehould be dlsnlesed upon proper

proof. T

Thereleanoutetantllngarronal.ylnthe]-lneof
rrong-respontlent casea, that of l{est v. Iroulelana, 478 F'2'1

1026 (:ttr C1r. 197r), vacated, 51o ?'2a 563 (1975) (en banc) '

fhere, a prleon lnnate actlng Dro se f1}ed a habeae petltlon,

nanlng the state aB reepondent ln the captlon of the court-

supplled forn. He dld, hovever, eet out hle plaee of

conflnenent 1n the body of the petltlon. In unnecessary

9g!gg,thecourtsaldthattheroletakevaeaproeetlural

6tt" expect that
defect prlor to

vhere a na.ned reepondent fall-s to ralse the
ii;"1 juagtrent, hl generally doeenrt eatch 1t

at all.
?Eere, the requlred proof 1e preeent 1n the petltlon, the
ansre", and 1; the state statute'

8



rather than a Jurledlctlonal defeet (+Ze f'.2d 1O29).

Eovever, the ratlo decltlencll of the ileclelon wag that (1) the

lnmate vas actlng vtthout eouneel, (Z) he uas of eubnormal

tntelllgence , (r) he nay have been nlelead by the pre-prlnted

forn, and (+) he provlded the lnfornatlon requlred 1n the

body of the form anyyay. &, 1)2g-r1 . rhe preelee holdlng

Yas as follovs:
Hhen, 8s here, a layrnan preparlng h-le

oun p"tftfott supplles 1l gubstance all
the infornatlon vhlch the etatute re-
qulree, the petltlon nay and should be
consldered on lts nerlte'

Yest, 478 f'.2d at 1031 .

rfe r re a long vay fron the faete of E*. Thls court

does not have a petltlon drafted by a lay-pereon of eubnornal

lntellect. 0n the contrary, t{e. Bozenan ls repreeented by

lncrecl1b1y vell-edlucatecl end experlenced couneel, antl by a

nunber of thern at that. (See the t{ot1on for Appolntnent of

couneel and . . . Attorney's Fees antl the affltlavlte attached

to lt). tloreover, the sege notlon ehoue that ltls. Bozeman's

tea.n of laryers had elxteen nonths to prepare the petltlon

properly. S

SThe Suprene Court tlenle<l th9 petltlon for certlorarl ln
pecerte-r, '1981 . Us. BozemantB next court appearanee a,as thle
fr"U"." p6tfiron, vlthout the cuetonary lnterventlon of
collateial attacks 1n the etate courte'



Hence t

reagong eet

eondltloned

pleadlngs.

petltloner I s

out 1n @!.
lts ruIlng on

Id. at 10r1 ).

error cannot be excueed for the

(Even 1n Yest, the court

eubsequent anendnent of the

Obv1oue1y, Ye urge thle court to vacate or Othervlee eet

aslde the Judgenent renderetl heretofore and to dlsnlss the

conplalnt agalnst respondente lanbert, Irufkln, Porter, and

Sutler. Thls 1s a course of actlon epproved by the courts

1r, e.g., !j!!!|!er:!, Bupre (Za Ctr.); @, supra (gttr

C1r. ); !,Iorehead, Bupra (gttr C1r. ); Egg, supra' (E'D'

Tenn.); llcKaE V. Ralnes , 4O5 F.Supp. ,6, (D' Kan' 1975)l

Irloles v., oklahona, supre (Y.D. 0k1a. ); EEgklnB., Bupra (il.D'

I11. ); $!g, suPra (w.D. Pa- ); llcGoran' supra (S'D' N'Y' ) '

At a nlnlnurn, the petltloner should be requlred to enentl

her appllcatlon to nane her cuetodlan. Johneon v. tftLllans'

5OB F.Supp. 52, 56-57 (D. I{.J. 1980) (frofafng that dlamlssa]-

of a respondent le proper 1f he loees custody vh1le the case

1s 1n the dletrlct court); DeSouea v. Abramg , 467 F.Supp. 51 1

(3 .0. N.Y. 19?9); eee a1eo, Jonee v. Cunnlnghan, 371 U.S.

236, 8' S.Ct. 57r, 9 \.Ed.2d 285 (195r).

V. t{hat le the Proper Renedy 1f thle Court
Dei€

Qbv1oue1y, ye urge thle court to vacate or othervlee

10



VI. Are Respondents Nov Ralelng

Reeponttente antletpate a eLaln fron petltloner thet ve

are now obJectlng on uerely academle grounds.

Ftrst, re note thai thte court ayardetl coets to the

prevalling party 1n the sunnary Judgroent of Aprll 15, 1984.

Petltloner took atlvantage of the arard by bllIlng coete ln

the anount of $4900 plus. lfhlle respondents lterate the

enphatlc obJectlons ratsed earller to the cost b111, the

threat of euch a penalty !s auong the reasona that the

identlty of the party 1e not an academlc questlon'

Nextr ue subnlt that 1t vould be a dangerous practlce to

alIov thoee 1n the posltlon of the petltloner to sue persone

yho are not thelr Jallers. If show eause ordere are tllrected

to ersatz custodlane, sone of those served v111 refuse to

reepond, thue nvalvlngn the rights of the true cuetodlane'

YII. Coneluston

For the reasona etated abover Y€ respectfulLy subnlt

that thle Court ghoultl relleve repsonttente IJaubert, Lufkln,

Porter, and But1er from the Judgnent of April 13, ancl ehould

vacate that Judguent.

Reepectfully eubnlttett thls ./l & Uq of June, .|984 '

11

'ol,

ATTORIrEY FOR RESPOI{DENTS