Kitchens v. Alderman
| Decision Date | 21 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24037.,24037. |
| Citation | 376 F.2d 262 |
| Parties | Herman KITCHENS, Appellant, v. D. H. ALDERMAN, Sheriff of Coulquitt County, Georgia, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles S. Ralston, New York City, C. B. King, Albany, Ga., for appellant.
Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges and BREWSTER, District Judge.
Appellant sought relief from a state court conviction, Kitchens v. State, 1966, 221 Ga. 839, 147 S.E.2d 509, by way of federal habeas corpus. The District Court erred in refusing to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis. Such refusal is an appealable order. Roberts v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1950, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L. Ed. 1326. Appellant's uncontroverted affidavit made out a prima facie case of indigency under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915. Adkins v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 1948, 335 U.S. 331, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43. One of the grounds for relief is claimed systematic exclusion of Negroes from the state petit jury. This claim is not facially frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915. Cf. Whitus v. State of Georgia, 1967, 385 U. S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Collom
...who wish to proceed In forma pauperis must still overcome a "nonfrivolous" barrier under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. E. g., Kitchens v. Alderman, 376 F.2d 262 (CA5 1967); Blair v. California, 340 F.2d 741 (CA9 1965). 3. The constitutional treatment of habeas corpus, of course, is not contained in the......
-
Williams v. Rhoden
...(1948); In re Smith, 600 F.2d 714, 714-16 (8th Cir. 1979); Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, 821-24 (3d Cir. 1975); Kitchens v. Alderman, 376 F.2d 262, 263 (5th Cir. 1967).9 In this regard, see generally United States ex rel. Wissenfeld v. Wilkins, 281 F.2d 707, 715-16 (2d Cir. ...
-
O'NEAL v. United States
...as provided by law. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 1948, 335 U.S. 331, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43; Kitchens v. D. H. Alderman, 5 Cir.1967, 376 F.2d 262, The judgment is in all respects affirmed, except that upon remand the District Judge shall determine whether the appeal shou......
-
Flowers v. Turbine Support Division
...under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950); Kitchens v. Alderman, 376 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1967). Flowers was in the process of appealing this order in an orderly fashion when her case was Orders denying applications to proc......