Daugharty v. Gladden
| Decision Date | 22 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9080. |
| Citation | 150 F. Supp. 887 |
| Parties | Clifford DAUGHARTY, Petitioner, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Clifford Daugharty in pro. per.
No appearance for respondent.
This matter comes on for consideration upon the petition of Clifford Daugharty, above named, (plaintiff) filed herein on March 27, 1957, for a writ of habeas corpus from this Court commanding Clarence T. Gladden, as the Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary, (defendant) to comply with the terms of such writ with the view of restoring to the plaintiff rightful liberty and freedom.
This is the third time the plaintiff has sought similar relief from this Court and our course has been plotted for us by the following order of the Hon. William Denman, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, entered on June 7, 1956, "In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Clifford Daugharty" then pending before Chief Judge Denman, viz.:
On July 11, 1956, plaintiff herein filed in Civil Case No. 8615, pending in this Court, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition was denied by order made and entered herein. Thereafter the plaintiff in that case, as appellant, appealed the cause to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Whereupon, the United States Court of Appeals, in the matter pending before it designated as Misc. No. 569, entitled, "Clifford Daugharty, Petitioner, vs. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent," issued the following order, dated September 13, 1956:
It appears from plaintiff's petition that he is now in the custody of the defendant under and pursuant to a judgment and sentence order made and entered on November 20, 1951, by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Deschutes County in a matter then pending before said Court, entitled: "State of Oregon, Plaintiff, vs. C. M. Daugharty, Defendant," wherein and whereby the plaintiff was sentenced to serve not to exceed fifteen years in the Oregon State Penitentiary, in Salem, Oregon, following his conviction upon a verdict of a jury of guilty of the crime of knowingly uttering and publishing a forged bank check (Oregon Compiled Laws Annotated, Sec. 23-560).
The plaintiff urges that the aforesaid judgment and conviction order is void by reason of the fact that his constitutional rights, guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, have been abridged. The plaintiff further contends that his constitutional rights under the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States have been abridged, as shown by the following procedures had in the courts of the state of Oregon:
On or about December 9, 1954, the plaintiff filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Marion County, a court of proper venue (Marion County Circuit Court) seeking his release from custody of the defendant under and pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and conviction order, on the alleged grounds that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional, and that other constitutional rights of the plaintiff under the Oregon Constitution had been abridged during the course of his trial in the state Circuit Court.
On July 11, 1956, the Marion County Circuit Court, aforesaid, entered its order denying the petition of the plaintiff. On July 24, 1956, the plaintiff filed in said Circuit Court proceedings, his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon from the aforesaid order of denial and dismissal of plaintiff's petition.
On August 17, 1956, plaintiff filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon a petition for leave to appeal from the aforesaid adverse decision of the Marion County Circuit Court without the payment of the Supreme Court's statutory filing fees,1 or posting the statutory undertaking on appeal.2 This petition was allowed on August 20, 1956.
On September 26, 1956, plaintiff filed his motion for praecipe on appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, seeking an order of the Court.
On October 3, 1956, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon denied plaintiff's aforesaid motion for praecipe on appeal in its entirety.5
On November 21, 1956, the Attorney General in and for the State of Oregon, filed his motion in the Supreme Court for an order to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from the order of dismissal entered by the Marion County Circuit Court.
On November 25, 1956, the plaintiff filed in the United States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari as to the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.
On December 28, 1956, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon allowed the aforesaid motion of the Attorney General and plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
On February 25, 1957, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari, 352 U.S. 1009, 77 S.Ct. 574, 1 L.Ed.2d 554.
Now at this point we are required to determine whether it appears that the plaintiff:
Taking up first sub-division (b) of our query, this Court is of the firm opinion that the decision of the United States Supreme Court entered on April 23, 1956, in Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, is our directive. This Supreme Court decision is fully analyzed in the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court in Barber v. Gladden, supra, which acknowledges the decision as its directive and advises this Court as to the law of the State of Oregon. In Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, the defendants had been convicted of armed robbery and they had requested of the trial court an order requiring they be furnished without cost a certified copy of the entire record including a transcript of the proceedings. It appeared that the defendants were paupers and that under Illinois law, Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, supra 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 588. Under Illinois law, except in case of defendants sentenced to death, "defendants needing a transcript, whether indigent or not, must themselves buy it."
This request was denied by the trial court and the defendants insist that the failure to provide them with a transcript violated the constitutional rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
As to Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, supra, suffice to say that it dealt with a provision of the Illinois Constitution which is similar to Article I, Sec. 10 of the Oregon Constitution, reading:
"No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation."
The language of the Supreme Court decision, inter alia, advises:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daugharty v. Gladden
...During his imprisonment the petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, which Petition was dismissed D.C., 150 F.Supp. 887 because, seemingly, petitioner had not exhausted all of the remedies available to him in the State Court. This order was appealed in the Cour......
-
Daugharty v. Gladden
...had not, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of the state of Oregon. Daugharty v. Gladden, D.C., 150 F.Supp. 887.2 Daugharty filed notice of appeal, and appeared in this court in propria persona. A judge of this court granted a certificat......
-
Daugharty v. Gladden, Civ. No. 504-59.
...for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, the petition being filed on March 27, 1957. This petition was denied on April 22, 1957, D.C., 150 F.Supp. 887, and petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to this Court with instructions to enter suc......
- United States v. Redding