The facts of this case are undisputed. Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After conviction of forgery in the California state courts, appellant was thereafter paroled by the Adult Authority of that state. He was subsequently arrested by federal authorities and charged with robbery, in the United States District Court of Southern California. He was convicted, and appealed. His bond was fixed at $25,000 pending appeal. A “hold” or “detainer” was placed on appellant by a California parole agent, “preventing appellant from securing bail.”

Appellant urges but one question of law — whether a California parole agent has authority to place the “hold” on him.

A prisoner on parole in in custodia legis, and no warrant is needed to arrest a parolee who is already a prisoner.

When a parolee is already in physical custody of authorities, a “hold” is the customary and proper method to reassert his obligation to the parole board; and is issued by the parole officer. People v. Goss, 193 Cal.App.2d 720, 726 , 14 Cal.Reptr. 569, 572-573 (1961); In re McLain, 55 Cal.2d 78, 87 , 9 Cal.Rptr. 824, 830 , 357 P.2d 1080 (1960).

Appellant assumes there has been a revocation of parole. No proof that there has been such a revocation is before us; merely a “hold.”

Appellant urges that an appeal has been taken from the federal conviction — and his conviction has therefore not become final. In California, an official accusation of crime while one is on parole is, in and of itself, proper ground for suspending parole. In re Payton, supra. Nor can we assume the “hold” was issued only because of the federal charges made against appellant. (Other charges are mentioned in appellee’s brief.)

Appellant further urges his right to be released on bail, because a fugitive from justice from another state has (not the right to bail, as appellant asserts, but) an opportunity to have bail set, pending the determination of the extradition proceedings. No extradition is here involved, and we find no unjust discrimination.

We affirm the denial of the writ of habeas corpus.