Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.. Dist. of Cal., No. 2

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; FRANKFURTER
PartiesROBERTS v. . isc
Docket NumberM,No. 2
Decision Date05 June 1950

339 U.S. 844
70 S.Ct. 954
94 L.Ed. 1326
ROBERTS

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 2, Misc.
Argued March 31, 1950.
Decided June 5, 1950.

Mr. Max Radin, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, who is confined in a California state prison, sought to file a petition in forma pauperis for a writ of injunction in the District Court below. That court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915, because he was no longer a 'citizen' as required by that section. The District Court reached that decision in reliance on California Penal Code, § 2600, which provides that one sentenced to imprisonment for a term

Page 845

of years is deprived of his civil rights for the period of imprisonment. The decision of the District Court is in error. Citizenship for the purpose of in forma pauperis proceedings in the federal courts is solely a matter of federal law. Congress has not specified criminal convictions, except for desertion and treason, as grounds for loss of citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 801, 8 U.S.C.A. § 801.

Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for allowance of an appeal from the order of the District Court. The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order. 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 1949, 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528. The Court of Appeals, however, held that it had 'no power to grant an application for allowance of an appeal,' and dismissed the petition.

Finally, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases. Ex parte Collett, 1949, 337 U.S. 55, 72, 69 S.Ct. 944, 953, 93 L.Ed. 1207, 10 A.L.R.2d 921, and cases there cited. Because of the ambiguous state of this record, and the fact that a denial of this motion will not prejudice petitioner in further attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion must be denied. It is so ordered.

Motion denied.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

To continue reading

Request your trial
151 practice notes
  • Lariscey v. U.S., No. 88-1322
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • November 23, 1988
    ...the question of appointment of counsel. Of similar purpose is the Supreme Court's holding, in Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam), holding that the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable under 28 U.S.C. S......
  • Devine v. Indian River County School Bd., No. 95-4847
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 5, 1997
    ...denying intervention as of right fit within the collateral order exception. Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 955, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524-25, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 1......
  • Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dept., Nos. 81-1767
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1985
    ...however, the logic of the Court's opinion equally applies here. The appellants argue that Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), in which the Court held that an order denying a habeas corpus applicant the right to proceed in forma pauperis......
  • Gordon v. Wilson, Nos. 81-1767
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1984
    ...concerned, as Congress recognized, appointment of counsel is "too important to be denied review." In Roberts v. U.S. District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), a case subsequent to the Cohen case involving Page 1114 an imprisoned plaintiff who had been denied in forma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
151 cases
  • Lariscey v. U.S., No. 88-1322
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • November 23, 1988
    ...the question of appointment of counsel. Of similar purpose is the Supreme Court's holding, in Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam), holding that the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable under 28 U.S.C. S......
  • Devine v. Indian River County School Bd., No. 95-4847
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 5, 1997
    ...denying intervention as of right fit within the collateral order exception. Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 955, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524-25, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 1......
  • Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dept., Nos. 81-1767
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1985
    ...however, the logic of the Court's opinion equally applies here. The appellants argue that Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), in which the Court held that an order denying a habeas corpus applicant the right to proceed in forma pauperis......
  • Gordon v. Wilson, Nos. 81-1767
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1984
    ...concerned, as Congress recognized, appointment of counsel is "too important to be denied review." In Roberts v. U.S. District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), a case subsequent to the Cohen case involving Page 1114 an imprisoned plaintiff who had been denied in forma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT