Pacileo v. Walker
101 S. Ct. 308, 66 L.Ed. 2d 304, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 155 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a court in an asylum state considering a petition for habeas corpus may not inquire into the constitutionality of the prison conditions in the demanding state. Such claims must be litigated in the courts of the demanding state after extradition.
Facts:
- In 1975, James Dean Walker escaped from the Arkansas Department of Corrections.
- Walker was apprehended in California in 1979 after being at large for several years.
- In December 1979, the Governor of Arkansas formally requested that the Governor of California extradite Walker, alleging he was a fugitive from justice.
- In February 1980, the Governor of California honored the request and issued a warrant for Walker's arrest and rendition.
- The Sheriff of El Dorado County, California, served the warrant upon Walker.
- Walker contended that the Arkansas prison system was operated in a manner that violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Procedural Posture:
- After the Governor of California issued a warrant for his rendition, James Dean Walker challenged the warrant in state and federal courts.
- Walker's challenges were unsuccessful until his case reached the Supreme Court of California.
- The Supreme Court of California issued a writ of habeas corpus, directing the Superior Court of El Dorado County to hold hearings to determine if the Arkansas penitentiary conformed with the Eighth Amendment.
- The Sheriff of El Dorado County, petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Supreme Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution permit a court in an asylum state to conduct an inquiry into the constitutionality of the demanding state's prison conditions before granting extradition?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The Extradition Clause does not permit a court in an asylum state to investigate the prison conditions of the demanding state. Interstate extradition is intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding. Citing Michigan v. Doran, the court's review on a writ of habeas corpus is strictly limited to four issues: (a) whether the extradition documents are in order, (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request, and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. The Supreme Court of California ignored the precedent set in Sweeney v. Woodall, which held that constitutional challenges to a demanding state's penal system must be raised in the courts of that demanding state. Allowing the asylum state to conduct a plenary review of such issues would defeat the plain purpose of the summary procedures authorized by the Constitution.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Implicitly, Yes. The majority's reliance on precedent is misplaced, and the case should be set for plenary review rather than being decided summarily. Michigan v. Doran is not controlling because it did not involve an Eighth Amendment claim about prison conditions. Sweeney v. Woodall is also distinguishable because it concerned the power of federal courts to grant habeas relief, not a state court's decision to grant state habeas relief. Because existing precedents do not directly control this specific situation, the Court should not have reversed the California Supreme Court's decision without full briefing and oral argument.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the limited role of asylum state courts in interstate extradition proceedings. It establishes that a fugitive's claims regarding unconstitutional treatment or prison conditions in the demanding state are not a valid defense against extradition. The ruling reinforces principles of federalism by preventing one state's judiciary from passing judgment on another state's penal system, thereby preserving the summary and ministerial nature of the extradition process. Future fugitives are now clearly barred from using the courts of an asylum state to litigate the constitutionality of their potential confinement, forcing them to raise such challenges within the justice system of the state from which they fled.
