Wilson v. Dixon, 15816.
| Citation | 256 F.2d 536 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15816.,15816. |
| Parties | James WILSON, Relator and Best Friend of Clifford Jefferson, Appellant, v. Fred DIXON, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, California, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
James Wilson, in pro. per., Jack Tenner, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Doris Maier, Wm. O. Minor, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, POPE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
Wilson, a convict confined in the Folsom State Prison at Represa, Sacramento County, California, suing as the next friend of Clifford Jefferson, a convict confined under sentence of death for a violation of § 4500 of the West's Ann. California Penal Code1 in the San Quentin State Prison, Marin County, California, appeals from a denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside Jefferson's death sentence.
On March 18, 1957, Jefferson had filed his own petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, numbered 36282 on the files of that court. After a hearing in the case, the court denied the petition for habeas corpus on April 16, 1957. A certificate of probable cause was granted and a notice of appeal filed on April 29, 1957. After briefs were filed and the matter argued, this court on November 15, 1957, affirmed the order of the District Court. (Jefferson v. Teets, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 955.) A petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on March 3, 1958. (355 U.S. 967, 78 S.Ct. 559, 2 L.Ed.2d 542.)
Wilson's sole pertinent contention is stated in his following question:
Nowhere has Jefferson nor Wilson in his behalf sought relief under this contention by a habeas corpus proceeding in any California court and hence we are without jurisdiction to consider it, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 providing:
Underlying this absence of jurisdiction of the subject matter, is the absence of jurisdiction in personam in Wilson. Title 28...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamblen v. Dugger, 89-567-Civ-J-12.
...run the risk of making the actual defendant a pawn to be manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case."); Wilson v. Dixon, 256 F.2d 536, 538 (9th Cir.1958); Evans, 467 F.Supp. at 1111. There has been an implicit endorsement of "next friend" status for the public defender who was app......
-
Brown v. Brown, Civ. No. F 82-130.
...and (2) the relationship and interest of the `next friend.'" Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1978). Accord Wilson v. Dixon, 256 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1958); Collins v. Traeger, 27 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1928). The underlying purpose for satisfying the Court of the interest of the petit......
-
Granger v. Johnson, 75-18-A
...interest in the matter and satisfactorily explains why the intended beneficiary has not himself applied for the writ. Wilson v. Dixon, 256 F.2d 536, 537-38 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 856, 79 S.Ct. 89, 3 L.Ed.2d 90 (1958); In re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 689, 470 P.2d 640, 648, 87 Cal.R......
-
Weber v. Garza, 78-1149
...court judge who is more fully familiar with the "procedural plethora" which surrounds the Zimmermans and Leona Weber.3 Wilson v. Dixon, 256 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1958). See also Gusman v. Marrero, 180 U.S. 81, 87, 21 S.Ct. 293, 45 L.Ed. 436 (1900); Johnson v. Avery, 382 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1967......