From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Forbes v. Ricketts

Supreme Court of Georgia
Apr 29, 1975
234 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1975)

Opinion

29845.

SUBMITTED APRIL 21, 1975.

DECIDED APRIL 29, 1975.

Habeas corpus. Butts Superior Court. Before Judge Sosebee.

William J. Forbes, pro se. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Julius C. Daugherty, Jr., for appellee.


This appeal is from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butts County dismissing a complaint designated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The sole complaint of the prisoner relates to an alleged loss of "good time allowance" in 1973. While the prisoner alleges that all administrative remedies had been exhausted, such conclusion is not supported by the facts contained in the petition.

1. Under decisions exemplified by Brown v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 795 ( 204 S.E.2d 137); Heard v. Hopper, 233 Ga. 617 ( 212 S.E.2d 797), once such administrative remedies have been exhausted the prisoner's remedy is against the Director of the Department of Corrections for mandamus or injunction but not a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the petition naming only the warden of the facility where the prisoner is serving his sentence as a defendant was properly dismissed.

2. Moreover, under the decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 573 ( 94 S.C. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935), since the alleged possible forfeiture of "good time" allowance in this case occurred prior to the decision in that case, the procedural requirements therein set forth are not applicable here. See Mincey v. Hopper, 233 Ga. 378 ( 211 S.E.2d 283).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


SUBMITTED APRIL 21, 1975 — DECIDED APRIL 29, 1975.


Summaries of

Forbes v. Ricketts

Supreme Court of Georgia
Apr 29, 1975
234 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1975)
Case details for

Forbes v. Ricketts

Case Details

Full title:FORBES v. RICKETTS

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Apr 29, 1975

Citations

234 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1975)
216 S.E.2d 82

Citing Cases

Lillard v. Head

In each instance, the confinement constitutes a denial of liberty without due process of law. Unlike Forbes…

Edwards v. Malmberg

In view of the styling and nature of the complaint and the relief sought, we agree that it was not a petition…