Stuart v. Bomar
| Decision Date | 13 November 1958 |
| Citation | 261 F.2d 274 |
| Parties | John Ruble STUART, Petitioner, v. Lynn BOMAR, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John Ruble Stuart, pro. per.
Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, and SIMONS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner has tendered to the Clerk of this Court a signed paper styled, "Notice of Appeal To The United States Court of Appeal," which purports to give notice of his appeal to this Court from the final order dismissing his application for writ of habeas corpus entered on October 22, 1958, by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. He has attached to this Notice of Appeal numerous papers of various nature, including a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a four-page signed document captioned, , and purported copies of various papers filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and in the Criminal Court, Hamblen County, Tennessee, in which state court petitioner apparently was convicted of murder and sentenced to confinement in the State Penitentiary for a period of 99 years.
It appears from said papers that petitioner filed in the District Court on October 27, 1958, what purports to be a notice of appeal from the order of October 22, 1958, the sufficiency of which we do not pass upon at this time. Although the "Notice of Appeal" tendered to the Clerk of this Court states that petitioner's "Motion to Appeal" filed with the District Court was denied by order of October 28, 1958, a copy of the Court's order of October 28, 1958, included in the papers above referred to, reads, "It is, therefore, ordered that the motion of petitioner for an appeal in forma pauperis be and the same is hereby denied."
It also appears from said papers that the United States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, relying in part upon the failure of the petitioner to exhaust his available state remedies, refused to issue a certificate of probable cause, required by Sec. 2253, Title 28, U.S.Code, in order to take an appeal to this court from the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsey v. Perini, 19025.
...of Internal Revenue, 218 F.2d 703, 704, (C.A.6); Kahler-Ellis Company, etc. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 225 F.2d 922, (C.A.6); Stuart v. Bomar, 261 F.2d 274, 275, (C.A.6); Casalduc v. Diaz, 117 F.2d 915, 916 (C.A.1), cert. den. 314 U.S. 639, 62 S.Ct. 74, 86 L.Ed. 512; Napier v. Delaware, L......
-
Hullom v. Burrows
...is denied. The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to grant an appeal. Crawford v. Gajewski, 6 Cir., 261 F.2d 301; Stuart v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 261 F.2d 274. Petitioner, however, treats his motion as a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. We are of the opinion on the record presented to ......
- CB Snyder Realty Co. v. Sherrill-Noonan, Inc.