E. MARTINEZ v. E. CRAVEN
| Decision Date | 08 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22136.,22136. |
| Citation | 397 F.2d 256 |
| Parties | Alfred E. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Warden of Folsom Prison, and Raymond Procunier, California Director of Corrections, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Alfred E. Martinez, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, James A. Aiello, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before HAMLEY, JERTBERG and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is in penal custody of the State of California pursuant to a judgment of conviction imposed by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, following his conviction by a jury of violating Section 11500 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2242, appellant filed, in forma pauperis, his application for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The petition was denied without hearing. The district court issued a certificate of probable cause and granted appellant permission to appeal to this court in forma pauperis from the order denying his application.
In his application the appellant does not attack the judgment of conviction in the state court, but alleges that an appeal from the judgment of conviction is pending in the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District of the State of California, and contends that he should be released from custody because those having custody of him have denied him access to the necessary legal material, such as law books, legal documents, and adequate library facilities needed to enable him to effectively prosecute his appeal in the California courts.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) provide, in substance, that an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner, and that an applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
Since, at the time of the filing of the application for the writ, appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UNITED STATES EX REL. DUNHAM v. Quinlan, 70 Civ. 3685.
...before applying to the federal courts for relief. United States ex rel. Griffin v. Martin, 409 F.2d 1300 (2d Cir. 1969); Martinez v. Craven, 397 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1968); United States ex rel. Jiggetts v. Follette, 260 F.Supp. 301 (S.D. N.Y.1966); United States ex rel. Hussey v. Fay, 220 F.......
-
Perry v. Decker, 27757 Summary Calendar.
...has not exhausted his available state remedies, particularly, his remedy of direct appeal. We agree. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Martinez v. Craven, 9th Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 256; see Texas v. Payton, supra; Bruce v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 212; United States ex rel. Heirens v. Pate, 7th Cir. 196......
- Anderson v. Wilson
-
Brown v. Craven
...since it was processed while petitioner's direct appeal was still pending in the California District Court of Appeal. Martinez v. Craven, 397 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1968). The District Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner's conviction while this appeal was pending before us, but so far as appear......