Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.. Dist. of Cal.

Decision Date05 June 1950
Docket NumberM,No. 2,2
Citation339 U.S. 844,94 L.Ed. 1326,70 S.Ct. 954
PartiesROBERTS v. . isc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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 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
162 cases
  • Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1955
    ...of the characteristics of finality. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6, 72 S.Ct. 1, 4, 96 L.Ed. 3; Roberts v. U.S. District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 955, 94 L.Ed. 1326; Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684, 688, 70 S.Ct. 861, 864, 94 L.Ed. 1206; Cohe......
  • Gordon v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth 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 an imprisoned plaintiff who had been denied in forma pauperis ......
  • Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 96-5807
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 23, 1998
    ...a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is immediately appealable. Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950). Like denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denial of leave to proceed pro se in......
  • Coppedge v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1962
    ...would be applicable as they are to appeals in other ancillary post-conviction proceedings. Cf. Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 955, 94 L.Ed. 1326. The court below has, by its own Rule 41(b), required all persons seeking leave to appeal a judgment of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 24 Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
    • United States
    • US Code 2020 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Title VI. Habeas Corpus; Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
    • January 1, 2020
    ...leave to initiate an action in the district court in forma pauperis is reviewable on appeal. See Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950).Subdivision (b). Authority to allow prosecution in forma pauperis is vested only in a "court of the Unit......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 24 Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
    • United States
    • US Code 2022 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
    • January 1, 2022
    ...leave to initiate an action in the district court in forma pauperis is reviewable on appeal. See Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950).Subdivision (b). Authority to allow prosecution in forma pauperis is vested only in a "court of the Unit......

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