Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sobell v. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided August 16, 1968No. 17349Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFreedman, Circuit Judge

I believe the District Court did not have jurisdiction over either of plaintiff’s claims.

In my view plaintiff may not seek declaratory judgment in this court because relief is available to him under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Relief available to federal prisoners under § 2255 parallels the scope of relief available to state prisoners on federal habeas corpus.1 It is therefore well within the limits of § 2255 to assert collateral claims by which a prisoner’s sentence would be reduced and his *991earlier release obtained. The reported cases show that § 2255 has been invoked on claims for post-sentence…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. United States v. HaymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  4. Peyton v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. McNally v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API