Kelly v. Dowd

Petitioners contention in cause 8377, that the District Court improperly dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we think, can not be upheld. Despite his voluminous citation of authority and zealous argument, we see no escape from the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L.R.A., N.S., 932, 14 Ann.Cas. 764; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 46 S. Ct. 492, 70 L. Ed. 927; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 61 S. Ct. 418, 85 L. Ed. 577; Reid v. Jones, 187 U.S. 153, 23 S. Ct. 89, 47 L. Ed. 116; Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1, 26 S. Ct. 229, 50 L. Ed. 343; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760 and followed by this court in such cases as Achtien v. Dowd, Warden, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 989; Botwinski v. Dowd, Warden, 7 Cir., 118 F.2d 829; Davis v. Dowd, Warden, 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 338.