Application of Meek, Misc. No. 949.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 949. |
| Citation | 138 F. Supp. 327 |
| Parties | Application of Lewis M. MEEK for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Lewis M. Meek, in pro per.
No appearance for respondent.
Petitioner has filed with this Court a motion seeking permission to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis. By his proposed petition, petitioner seeks to challenge his custody by the Warden of the California State Prison at Folsom. Petitioner is presently held in custody by said Warden on a commitment issued out of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento, in which said court the petitioner was convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree.
Preliminarily, it should be noted that petitioner can be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis only if his proposed petition has merit. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege and not a right, and if this Court determines that the proposed proceeding is without merit, this Court is duty bound to forthwith deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Meek v. City of Sacramento, D.C., 132 F.Supp. 546.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and has no authority beyond that specifically granted to it by law. The jurisdiction of this Court is never presumed but must, in every case, be affirmatively alleged and shown in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction. It is the duty of litigants to make clear to the Court the basis of its jurisdiction over the proceeding, and likewise, it is the duty of the Court to make sure that jurisdiction exists. If petitioner's petition fails to show actual jurisdiction, this Court must, if necessary, on its own motion, terminate the proceeding. Meek v. City of Sacramento, supra.
It is fundamental that before this Court can acquire jurisdiction under Section 2241(c) (3), of Title 28, United States Code, over a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner in the custody of state officials, pursuant to a state court judgment, that the proposed petition must present a question of the lawfulness of petitioner's custody under the Constitution and laws or treaties of the United States. Sampsell v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721, and Odell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 300. A further requirement of the law, which must be satisfied before this Court can entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner, is that petitioner must have exhausted his available state remedies as required by Section 2254, of Title 28, United States Code, as the law codified in that Section has been interpreted in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572, and Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, except when there is an absence of an available state corrective process, or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. Under the law there is no exhaustion of available state remedies until the specific issues sought to be presented to this Court have been actually and properly presented to the state courts. See Darr v. Burford, supra; Vanderwyde v. Denno, D.C., 113 F.Supp. 918, affirmed and opinion adopted 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 105, and Collins v. Heinze, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 186.
A general allegation in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that petitioner has exhausted his available state remedies, without showing what steps he has taken in the state courts to obtain his release, is but a conclusion of the petitioner, and it is insufficient to justify a federal court in interfering with state court action. Thompson v. Overlade, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 492; Harris v. Swenson, 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 269, and La Belle v. Hancock, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 273. A petitioner who is in the custody of state officials pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and who seeks relief from this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Woods
...Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; and Application of Meek, D.C., 138 F. Supp. 327). It may be noted, however, that even if this were not the case, it is the established law of this Circuit that petitioner has......
-
Application of Atchley, Civ. No. 7738.
...Courts, no more will be said than that the fundamental requirement of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 has not been met (See: Application of Meek, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 327), and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear said matters has not been shown. For this reason, they will be given no further I. Pe......
-
Hardison v. Dunbar
...— the petitioner must state with some specificity the facts upon which he contends his incarceration is unlawful (See: Application of Meek, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 327). Moreover, the failure of a habeas applicant to meet that standard entails no difficult burden for him. Further, his failure to ......
-
Application of Lyda
...petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites to proceeding in this Court under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (See: Application of Meek, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 327). Such being the case, the application is properly presented to this Court for a ruling on its merits, and it will thus be Pe......