Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Lamar Connelly Rodgers, Petitioner-appellant, v. State of Louisiana, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 418 F.2d 237
Oct. 29, 1969
LaMar Connelly Rodgers, pro se.
Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Sam L. Jones, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas., Hawthorne Phillips, Executive Asst., W. V. Geppert, Staff Legal Asst., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
$1, 2$ LaMar Connelly Rodgers, while incarcerated in the Harris County, Texas, jail, petitioned the District Court for the Southern District of Texas for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Rodgers is in the custody of the State of Texas as a result of his conviction there of robbery by assault. His petition does not challenge this Texas conviction. Instead, it challenges seven sentences imposed upon Rodgers by various Louisiana state courts between 1949 and 1954. Since neither the State of Louisiana nor its officials acting in their official capacities are subject to service of process in Texas, the District Judge properly dismissed Rodgers' petition. See Word v. North Carolina, 4 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 352, 357 (en banc). Habeas corpus relief from whatever restrictions are imposed upon Rodgers by the Louisiana sentences is not obtainable in a court lacking jurisdiction to issue the writ. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
We have concluded on the merits that this case is of the character that does not justify oral argument. Therefore, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties thereof in writing. 5 Cir.R. 18; see Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I (No. 27439, October 7); Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, 805-808