*1 deem needful remedies fashion injustices.14
correct any possible misunder- obviate
To on standing comments our add that availability in a court of remedies order Patent Office of a final way imply concluded we have improperly acted Office has the Patent appellant.
avis vis
Affirmed.
Stacy DOBSON, Appellant, A. v. Washington, Gottesman, Mr. Michael CAMERON, Superintendent, C. Dale Halpern, C.,D. with whom Mr. Charles Hospital, Appellee. St. Elizabeths Washington, (both appointed C.D. court) brief, appel- was on STULTZ, Appellant, Ronald Washing- Cohen, George Mr. H. lants. court) ton, (appointed also D. C. CAMERON, Superintendent, C. Dale appearance appellants. entered an Hospital, Appellee. St. Elizabeths Lumbard, U. S. Mr. Thomas Asst. Nos. 20576. Atty., David G. Messrs. whom Appeals United States Court of Bress, Q. Atty., U. Frank Nebeker S. District of Columbia Circuit Attys., Cohen, M. Asst. U. S. William Argued appellee. brief, on the Sept. Decided Before Chief Bazelon, McGowan, Burger, Wright,
Danaher,
Cir-
Tamm,
Robinson,
Leventhal
Judges, sitting
cuit
en banc.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants
in these two
Elizabeths under
at St.
appeals
a dis-
commitment. Each
from
Court,
after hear-
missal
the District
ing,
corpus petition. We
of his habeas
reverse and
each case for
remand
hearing
judge.
different
before a
sorts,
complication
need not
No. has in 21 D.C. (Supp. V., 1966). Code 546 This court Dobson, Appellant in addition to has heretofore indicated belief its claiming eligibility re immediate such procedures administrative as are question lease^—a heard and which was normally available should exhausted adversely decided him —raised a to before resort courts.2 had to the We variety The trial of other issues. vigorously reaffirm that belief in most regard any justiciable. did of as these context in alleged Since one them denial was an respect question of which there no can be treatment, right of the reversal and Congressional as purpose to the to afford hearing required a in remand for an administrative avenue of relief as a any event.1 21 562 D.C.Code § preface judicial consideration. V., 1966); and see Rouse v. is, however, record before us unclear as U.S.App.D.C. 366, 125 exactly happened respect wha.t has raising of the of this issue in the District regard hearing, In the such new Court or considerations are in eligibility issue of as also release respect withholding open inquiry and determina- for a fresh intervention at this date in advanced tion, since its we are not satisfied history concluded, of this ease. We have upon adequate resolution was founded an therefore, parties to leave the free on hearing. We do not address ourselves remand to take such action and make specifically referred to in point they contentions on this as 1, supra, Note are content since we fit; deem will, and the District Court judge disposition pre- leave their as it do, should be entitled deal siding at note new trial. We the matter first instance. appear that some of them would to be intimately to, perhaps part 20,576 related a and No. of, adequacy the central pro appellant petition, se In his treatment; that, and the extent was that he Stultz asserted so, they implicated inevitably security improperly in the maximum held the trial of that issue. to another ward and should be tranferred urged upon issue, It has place hospital. been us in this This within appeal regarded petition judge habeas which the trial had not all, justiciable Dobson, should not been entertained at nevertheless was hearing, evidentiary subject much less made the occasion of a hear an ruling appellant pursue because did not first which ended with a remedy though juris- judge that, administrative which Con- he had no even included, complaints alleging 1. considering The other issues addition to lack of treatment, alleged appellee procedures failures would These discharge statutory op obligations keep only provide Hospital an proper appellant portunity remedy, records and to accord but would to afford a might provide communication with world the outside assist also record which telephone mail; resulting and and also ex- liti non-statutory gation. given “adequate tended to claims And liberty, procedures, of undue restrictions such as administrative available” improper might although argued, maximum retention se- we do curity ward, arbitrary primary decide, limitations doctrines visiting privileges, jurisdiction re- remedies unreasonable exhaustion of permit appellant See, g., Myers apply. fusals work out- v. Beth e. day. 41, during Shipbuilding Corp., side the institution U.S. 303 lehem 459, L.Ed. 638] S.Ct. 82 [58 Cameron, supra, ; U.S.App. (1938) Fowler, we said as Sohm follows: F.2d D.C. decided requirement right to treat [the This suggests appropriate also F.2d ment] procedures n. ness of sought diction, deny No. the relief he would that, Being hearing opened the merits. unconvinced counsel told As the circumstances, there has alternatively judge that Dobson the trial hearing meaningful longer resolution mentally ill, been if he or is that advanced, longer dangerous we reverse claim to himself he is no *3 hearing. remand for a others and should be released. necessary event, added, that he is not it appeal for first it On was the in the John Howard Pavil- he be retained ap- had a denial of time that there been security unit maximum ion “which the is right pellant’s to 21 D.C. hospital” Dobson should and that 1966); V., and see Code 546 § enjoy greater permitted free- to the 366, “be 125 result and liberties which would dom con- Our remand being assigned of the less to one from templates this be raised that hospital.” the restrictive of units appellant so if District Court respect of elects. the exhaustion With to asked to was Thus court ap- remedies, legal we note that administrative Dobson via status of decide the pellee’s appears testimony taking return the writ corpus. After habeas question, petitioner this judge raised that trial found issue. “suffering nonetheless directed to mentally ill, writ was from Chronic is suggested in We have above Dobson Syndrome Brain Associated Brain with substantiality ques- Psychotic Trauma, we to this Force, attribute with Gross case, ; and, in our in (Alcoholism) tion as remand and in remission Reaction parties free be or likely injure shall himself direct be remand such action as hospitalized.” to take trial if The others issue, mentally respect deem fit to this judge with concluded that Dobson making likely injure or ill, with himself would be liberty it of as the cir- it thinks warranted in at if to remain others allowed my mit a cumstances which ring in the result]: consistent eases It is so ordered. The DANAHER, Circuit observations. concur in remanded bit of judgments herewith. background [*] result obtain are [*] further reversed and [*] but wish to sub- Judge as a here.3 proceedings setting [concur- or August 12, 1965, writ of later petition tion cal den and that he had June 1965, Dobson other, petition of in in June 1964 with further 1963; proving habeas mandamus, December in March 1963 of habeas again corpus, like his failed he filed his he eligibility and an almost in petitions nature 15, corpus; another filed May 1965 sustain filed his in 1964. Then his fourth petition for of one sort for release. August July his next, Decem- identi- peti- first bur- 25, in appears appellant simultaneously Because and other Stultz treatment with complaining inadequate rights treat- confine- which assume continued (including ment, ment in maxi- moot if re- detention these latter become security administratively forthcoming; ward) mum con- and not of his lease sug- appropriate hospitalization, tinuing that, accordingly, it would be has been remedy stay gested its con- at least for a court until ex- § is not available sideration remedy. him in since it directed the administrative terms haustion person as situated alternatives immediate release note also that a We conceivably bring might him- continued commitment. We do not now Stultz by claiming precise scope decide entitle- the stat- within § self rights may be, other ute as the unless his inasmuch District ment release objectives recognized. The which do in in- Court the first by sought 546 would stance basis of contentions serve light ordinarily ac- farthest in advanced to it and the facts reading cording con- before it. statute record We note objectives. where, sought Dobson, in as in release is those sistent breadth filing hearing, 21, having appeal his sixth habe- 1965 before
her and leave been January petition court, fol- in 1966. Next denied certiorari was de- 11, February pleadings, 1960, May 979, lowed a series of nied in 80 S.Ct. U.S. 25, 1966, petition February he filed 4 L.Ed.2d Thereafter again August in follow- for habeas March in 1960 and in June 1961. 1962; by yet filings separate in ed other documents There in were six September eight 1963; proceedings this case was in while least ten pending. 1964; eight In case after case were five 1966 and two counsel, hearings, appointments judges 1967. At least different eleven rulings by Court, judges, testi- District Court the United District States mony by psychiatrists engaged other, others. one time hear- petitions records he had into show that broken various submitted money, hospital canteen, had stolen Stultz. *4 escaped charged hospital, from the Rouse1 testified that he had been be- guards forcing chief of the with him to reading stirred to seek release after a commit theft and various other dere- newspaper concerning article Cameron v. lictions. Mullen, (No. March 20308 decided 1967). Counsel for Stultz told the trial No. 20576 proceeded court that he because of this guilty of in 1955 had been found Stultz Cameron, opinion court’s Lake robbery, serving his sentence and while (en U.S.App.D.C. 264, banc, Elizabeths as had been committed St. 1966). Just what actuated the 40-odd mentally prisoner ill. a who had become proceedings by instituted I will Dobson In 1960 the on Mental Commission say. undertake reported Health court that Stultz mind, accordingly enough my justify he But was of unsound said pursuant promise, swpra, was committed D.C.Code submit a few com- § January 1961, legal questions 21-314. condition ments. his Posed as when diagnosed properly hospital they subject at the as schizo- be the should phrenic reaction, paranoid type. by discipline His in which they arise, urged counsel informed that trial various contentions only by Stultz he “doesn’t feel should have courts are limited ingenuity originate continue to live criminals with those who them. doubt, mentally they time, encouraged, says No are and he it hurts him at least degree, stay physically preoccu- to some in that to have to this court’s testimony pation years Psychiatric problems in recent confinement.” arising complained developed in the field mental health. had Stultz away presented But the people situation on rec- “that took him came and only emphasizes inanity night ords hospital from the 'system bring presentation which kill him him results at times even and then questions morning such just staff, the courts. back before the morning shift, came the next morn- on may suppose It seem reasonable to ing.” On numerous occasions without sooner or later be moved will apparent reason, he had attacked provide entity, the creation an nursing patient had or a He assistant. experts,2 duty some commission of whose pa- even broken the nose of one of the give appropriate it will be to attention to tients. involving questions, trivial, serious or patients, particularly pos- Stultz filed a writ of habeas mental those January propensities. 1959 which was dismissed after sessed of criminal I can Cameron, surely judges qualify. See And do not so (No. 20962, 1967) ; and see Rouse v. Cameron, U.S.App.D.C. 366, 373 F. (1966). 2d 451 seq. 1966) com- et criminal V of such interests assume finding of not pursuant to a society best mitment will as well insanity, guilty by all reason through such reference § be advanced Some, of the not all body, competent trained 24-301 problems rights the instant operating asserted duty under au- commit- the civil purpose. I am indeed articulated thority adequate for the they are or not ment statute. Whether completely convinced that banc, cognizable judicial proceeding or en- considered, en in a here as were by judicial procedures mat- engage is a required time forceable open majority to be leaves ter courts.3 including remand, pursued on the stand, presently As matters all question of exhaustion possibilities open is a remand us support- But result remedies. may explored under D.C.Code on the tortured construc- ed reliance surprised 1966). (Supp. V, I will not be placed stat- tion if contentions” Dobson shall “make such major- ute contained dictum fit, if “take as he shall deems Stultz ity opinion in 125 U.S. such action” counsel think as his (1966), App.D.C. F.2d 451 appropriate. Thereafter, if recent cases infirm- criminal commitment case. criteria, supply any will be back majority in the' ities and dictum of the again asking the court *5 opinion pointed to first Rouse Judges shall have done that once District Judge Danaher his dissent way say, not the more we “That’s case. not how do it." The we do know truth is opinion here does majority True, to do I think staff at it —but St. only a makes rely and indeed does Elizabeths know. reference very qualified limited opinion; Rouse see”) (“and the first Judge, (concur- BURGER, Circuit yet light treatment our but ring) : today,1 it seems action Rouse I concur in in the the result reached opinion is Rouse the first clear now Judge majority opinion Danaher’s grave doubts largely I have dictum. separate concurring opinion. I am con- hos- mental qualified to oversee arewe strained, however, point out what but, commitments pitals of civil in cases shortcoming believe is an unfortunate statutory basis least, is some there majority opinion. Congress argued that it can be on which gloss least us at opinion power The Court’s tends to over conferred some has important commitment inquire between civil distinction into civil Hospitalization de- is one when it any Mentally Act, As without treatment.2 tained public judicial narrowly officers Crime Commissions whether review any congestion in the courts treatment: concerned denial suggest need examine in these the court particular the records doWe happening eases to see what or can decide requires. time, patient The to mention the hours on end treatment spent ours in court Elizabeths staff here resembles St. court’s function rendering agency do action. We could be who otherwise when we agency require. has services their not decide whether decision, make the best made (No. U.S.App.D.C. Cameron, 1. permissible has made sure today). decided and reasonable decision view Cameron, Tribby U.S.App.D.C. 2. within a broad v. information relevant -, (Emphasis 104, (No. range add- 20,454, F.2d decided discretion. April 1967), Judge Edgerton ed). made it Supra -, at 105. That clear Court not embark- F.2d sweep- program negates holding on a broad scale notion to oversee confining mental institutions but rather Judge cogently pointed Danaher out in supra,
a clear distinction between two different situations, at 381-383 12-14,
nn. F.2d nn. 12-14 at 466-468
(dissenting opinion). blurring types two unrelated of commitment by majority opinion seems to here me
unfortunate.
TAMM, joins Circuit
concurring Judge opinions of Circuit Judge
DANAHER Circuit BUR-
GER. WORTHY, Appellant,
Jerome America,
UNITED STATES of Appellee.
No. 20659. *6 Appeals
United States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Aug. 11,
Decided Benjamin Jr., Custer, Wash-
Mr. Scott ington, court), (appointed C.D. appellant. Burnett, Mr. Arthur L. U. Asst. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. G. David Bress, Atty., Q. U. S. Frank Nebeker Titus, Attys., Jr., Harold H. Asst. U. S. brief, appellee. were on the Before Senior Circuit Edgerton, Wright* Leventhal, Judges. Circuit largely determining the choice surveillance over would be limited to therapy. psychiatic context, therapy con- whether choice of awas course, therapy necessarily neg- mean medical does not scious decision rather than interviews, group obviously judges compe- medication, lect; “couch” quality occupational given activities; therapy evaluate con- tence to simply hospitalization sist to afford choice of protective environment or milieu thera- * therefore, Judge Wright py. consideration, participate. Judicial Circuit did not