State v. Gladden
| Decision Date | 12 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 617.,617. |
| Citation | 240 F.2d 910 |
| Parties | STATE OF OREGON, ex rel. Earl SHERWOOD, Petitioner, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Earl Sherwood, in pro. per.
No appearance for respondent.
Before POPE, FEE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner has tendered to the Clerk of this Court for filing what he calls a "Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Forma Pauperis." Although this should have been an application for leave to file such a petition we shall consider the petition itself as such an application.
The petition seeks to have this Court order the respondent Warden of the Oregon State Penitentiary to permit petitioner, a prisoner in respondent's custody, to have access to law books and to borrow from the Oregon State Library and elsewhere law books and other legal materials to enable petitioner to inform himself as to the law relating to his rights so that petitioner may intelligently prepare and make a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that respondent has made and enforced a rule prohibiting him from procuring legal materials and other information through an exchange with other prisoners in the institution; that the Warden has prevented his mailing letters and other communications to various persons on the ground that the envelopes containing the same were sealed contrary to the rules of the penitentiary; that such rule prohibiting sealed letters to be mailed was applied to prevent the mailing of letters to the Judge of the United States District Court of the District of Oregon, to a Judge of Jackson County Circuit Court of Medford, Oregon, to the Chief Justice of the United States, and to the County Clerk of Jackson County Oregon. He complains that such notes, papers and legal materials which are in his possession are taken away from him each evening and he is not permitted to have them except from some time in the morning after 8 o'clock until about 3:30 P.M. when they are again taken away from him; that some of his notes have been destroyed; and he says that unless he can have access to bound volumes of law he cannot have any recourse to the courts since without citing authorities or precedents he would not know how to make a case since he is a layman and untrained in the law.
The petition does disclose that petitioner has not been denied an opportunity to file complaints or petitions with various courts. He has presented this petition to this court and it discloses that a substantially identical petition was presented by him to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon about December 27, 1956. It also appears from his petition that on or about August 10, 1955, he filed a "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" in the Circuit Court of Marian County, Oregon, which thereafter was considered and denied by that court.
Although the petition presented to us shows that his similar petition presented to the District Court was rejected on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain it, on January 10, 1957, it does not appear that petitioner attempted to appeal from that action. Seemingly he has assumed that because the district court rejected the petition he is now permitted to file an identical petition in this court.
Generally speaking this court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus otherwise than in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the district court his only remedy was to appeal. While informal documents of this type might possibly be treated as an attempted appeal,1 yet we would have no jurisdiction of an appeal for the reason that the district court was correct in reciting in its order that it was without jurisdiction. A federal court has no jurisdiction to supervise the administration of a state penitentiary by its warden. If petitioner were to apply to the district court for a writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. Wilson
...v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878, 881 (9th Cir. 1964); Pike v. Dickson, 323 F.2d 856, 857 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1963); State of Oregon ex rel. Sherwood v. Gladden, 240 F. 2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1957). And see Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 352, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392 7 Appellant alleges simply th......
-
United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
...conviction) a loss of civil rights, * * *. He has become an alien in his own country * * *." 11 See e.g., State of Oregon ex rel. Sherwood v. Gladden, 240 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1957); United States ex rel. Atterbury v. Ragen, 237 F.2d 953 (7th Cir. 1956); Pierce v. La Vallee, 293 F.2d 233 (2nd......
-
Pierce v. La Vallee
...a state prisoner complaining of improper prison treatment must seek his relief in the state court. See, e. g., State of Oregon ex rel. Sherwood v. Gladden, 9 Cir., 240 F.2d 910; United States ex rel. Atterbury v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 237 F.2d 953, certiorari denied 353 U.S. 964, 77 S.Ct. 1049, 1 ......
-
In re Brabson's Petition
...transmit a copy of this opinion to the defendant at the institution in which he is confined. 1 See, e. g., State of Oregon ex rel. Sherwood v. Gladden, 9 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 910. 2 In addition to his verified application, the petitioner submitted an unverified reply to the affidavit in opp......
-
Reading Law in Prison
...Complaints of Convicts, 72 Yale L. J. 506 (1963). 8 Taylor v. U. S., 179 F. 2d 640 (9th Cir. 1950); Oregon ex rel. Sherwood v. Gladden, 240 F. 2d 910 (9th Cir. 1957); Grove v. Smyth, 169 F. Supp. 852 (E. D. Va. 1958). 9 Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F. 2d 632 (7th Cir., 1961 ), cert. denied, 3......