GOBIN v. HANCOCK

To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus a person must be imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his personal liberty. Hence where one has already been released from imprisonment the question of whether he is entitled to the relief which he seeks by such a writ is moot. A refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus or a dismissal of one is not res judicata on a subsequent application for such a writ. However, repeated applications for a writ of habeas corpus introducing no new facts material to the issue will ordinarily be summarily disposed of.

LAMPRON, J.

A person must be imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his personal liberty to be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. R. L., c. 406, s. 1; Van Meter v. Sanford, 99 F.2d 511; 39 C. J. S. 428; 25 Am. Jur. 158. Having been granted his release from imprisonment, the right of the petitioner to the relief he seeks is now a moot question. A determination thereof by this court has therefore become unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. In re Halley, 327 Mich. 222; State ex rel. Magrum v. Nygaard, 38 N.W.2d 370 (1949).

Since this appeal the petitioner has filed three other petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this same matter. One was filed August 3, 1950, another September 12, 1950, and another October 20, 1950. A refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus or a dismissal of one is not res judicata on a subsequent application for such a writ. Sheehy v. Sheehy, 88 N.H. 223, 226. However, "repeated applications for a writ of habeas corpus introducing no new facts material to the issue will ordinarily be summarily disposed of." Petition of Moebus, 74 N.H. 213; U.S. ex rel. McCann v. Thompson, 144 F.2d 604, 606, cert. den., 323 U.S. 790; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 231; Ex parte Tidwell, 222 P.2d 760 (1950).

Petition dismissed.

JOHNSTON C.J., did not sit: the others concurred.