Hicks v. People of State of Michigan
| Decision Date | 06 September 1960 |
| Parties | Petition of J. B. HICKS, for Certificate of Probable Cause, Re Habeas Corpus ad-Satisfacundum, ad-Testificandum and Joint Motion for Certiorari, v. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
J. B. Hicks, in pro per.
Under the above caption J. B. Hicks, who is confined in a state penitentiary at Jackson, Michigan, has filed a series of papers in this court. Among them are an "Application and Affidavit in Support of Forma Pauperis, and for the Appointment of Counsel," "Petition for Writ of Mandamus Order to Show Cause for Certificate of Probable Cause," "Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis," "Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals" and "Petition for Certificate of Probable Cause."
An appeal cannot be taken from a District Court in a habeas corpus proceeding unless there is issued a Certificate of Probable Cause. Such a certificate may be issued by a Circuit Judge (Sec. 2253, Title 28 U.S.Code). I take it therefore that all of the papers are directed to the end that a Certificate of Probable Cause may issue and I will proceed to determine the rights of the petitioner in that respect.
"Words, Words, Words." "He multiplieth words without knowledge." The papers are made up of an unintelligible mass of meaningless legal jargon replete with inept citations and quotations, and villifying and abusive language charging various officials and judges of Michigan with "conspiracy to cover up perjury, forgery and fraudulent documents."
I search in vain in this mass of verbiage for the date and a description of the order from which the petitioner is attempting to appeal. Neither do I find any statement of facts which would give him standing in the Federal Courts.
These persons who file their cases pro se ought to understand that a Federal Court does not review the proceedings of a trial in a state court in search of errors of the trial judge. That is the function of a state appellate court. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. It is a collateral attack on a judgment of conviction. It tests the legality of confinement or imprisonment. A state court prisoner has standing in the Federal Courts in habeas corpus only if his Federal Constitutional rights are violated (Section 2241(c) (3), Title 28 U.S.Code).
Such person ought further to understand that he should give the judges credit for knowing the law and that it is not necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olsen v. McFaul
...(1966); Worth v. Michigan, 291 F.2d 621 (6th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 862, 82 S.Ct. 105, 7 L.Ed.2d 59 (1961); Hicks v. Michigan, 281 F.2d 645 (6th Cir.1960). Combs v. Tennessee, 530 F.2d 695, 698 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954, 96 S.Ct. 1731, 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976). The Supr......
-
Buder v. Bell
...proceeding cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Woolsey v. Best, Warden, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 2, 81 L.Ed. 3; Hicks v. People of the State of Michigan, 281 F.2d 645, C.A.6; Armstrong v. Bannan, 272 F.2d 577, C.A.6, cert. denied 362 U.S. 925, 80 S.Ct. 679, 4 L.Ed.2d 743; Wooten v. Bo......
-
Barker v. State of Ohio, 15444.
...a habeas corpus proceeding can not be used as a substitute for an appeal. Dye v. Sacks, 279 F.2d 834, 836, C.A.6th; Hicks v. People of State of Michigan, 281 F.2d 645, 646, C.A.6th; Turpin v. Sacks, 291 F.2d 223, C.A.6th, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 855, 82 S.Ct. 94, 7 L.Ed.2d It logically follo......
-
Ramsey v. Hand, 7093.
...from final orders in habeas corpus proceedings instituted to obtain the release of a state prisoner. E. g., Hicks v. People of the State of Michigan, 6 Cir., 281 F.2d 645; Gay v. Graham, 10 Cir., 269 F.2d 482; Harris v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 204 F.2d 685; Berman v. Swenson, 3 Cir., 177 F.2d 717, c......