Application of Cameron
| Decision Date | 06 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 668. |
| Citation | 247 F.2d 775 |
| Parties | Matter of the Application of Robert CAMERON for an Alternative Writ of Mandamus. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert Cameron, in pro per.
No appearance otherwise.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and POPE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
Prior to June 19, 1957, Robert Cameron, a prisoner in the Oregon State Penitentiary, under sentence of an Oregon court, addressed and presented to this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Clarence T. Gladden, Warden of said Penitentiary. As this court, as such, is not authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus, (Title 28 U.S. C.A., § 2241(a)), a division of this court noted on June 19, 1957 the court's lack of power to entertain the petition. As each individual Circuit Judge in that division declined to entertain the application for a writ of habeas corpus, as permitted by Title 28, § 2241(b), the application for the writ was ordered transferred to the District Court of Oregon. The said Robert Cameron, as petitioner, has now presented, for filing or action, a so-called "Petition for an alternative writ of mandamus", in which he alleges that following the transfer of his formal application to the District Court for the District of Oregon, and on the 21st day of June, 1957, the Honorable Claude McColloch, a Judge of that court, made an order reciting that the petitioner's application was "denied for want of jurisdiction." The present petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order or judgment of this court requiring the said District Judge to entertain and dispose of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus upon the merits. The present petition, although addressed to one member of the court only, is by us treated as presented to the court as such.
The order set forth in the petition for writ of mandamus to the effect that application for the writ of habeas corpus was denied for want of jurisdiction, is a final order and appealable as such. If the district court or judge thereof erred in making that order, that error may be corrected upon appeal. See Simpson v. Teets, 353 U.S. 926, 77 S. Ct. 720, 1 L.Ed.2d 722. Because the petitioner appears to be a layman not represented by counsel who has heretofore been able to make showing entitling him to proceed in forma pauperis, we might properly disregard the informality and treat the petition for mandamus as the equivalent of taking an appeal, as was done in Jordan v. United States District Court, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 233 F.2d 362, 365.1
The difficulty here, however, is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nephi Processing Plant v. Talbott, 5558.
... ... 175; Western Securities Co. v. Silver King Consol. Mining Co., 57 Utah 88, 192 P. 664. It has been held, however, that the rule has no application where the converted chattels are of a kind which have a fluctuating market value. In such cases the measure of damages is the highest market price of ... ...
-
Kapsalis v. Wilson
...Cir. 1958), Nethery v. Culver, 259 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1958), even though the petitioner is not represented by counsel, Application of Cameron, 247 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 917, 78 S.Ct. 347, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958). And the time limit cannot be extended by the parties or......
-
Poe v. Gladden
...28 U.S.C.A., an appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding. Application of Cameron, 9 Cir., 247 F.2d 775. The notice of appeal herein was filed on December 4, 1959, which was the sixty-seventh day after entry of the order of September 28......