United States v. Maroney
| Citation | 395 F.2d 207 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 16723.,16723. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Pearly WILSON, Appellant. v. James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Pearly Wilson, pro se.
William E. Pfadt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie County, Erie, Pa. (Frank L. Kroto, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie County, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
On February 24, 1967, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that he was illegally confined in the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pa. "as result of an unfair trial." The petition alleges that he was denied his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him and that his right of appeal was obstructed. Also, it alleges unconstitutionally discriminatory and dilatory treatment of proceedings instituted by him under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act (19 P.S. § 1180-1 ff.). An order transferring the above action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania was filed promptly and notice of such order was given to appellant. By order of March 3, 1967, the latter District Court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
In view of failure of the petition to comply with subsections 3-5, 7 and 8 of Local Rule 15 of the District Court and its failure to specify the state criminal charge, date of trial, term and number of the state court proceedings, length or date of sentence, or other pertinent facts, the order of the District Court dated March 3, 1967, will be affirmed.1
1 Appellant's briefs refer to several criminal docket numbers, presumably in the Erie County Courts, but until the record shows under which sentence appellant is confined and what other sentences, if any, are outstanding, a court cannot rule on general allegations such as those in his petition. Appellee has attached to his brief an answer filed in July 1967 to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, apparently subsequently filed by appellant in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which alleges that appellant was then at the State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pa. A copy of Rule 15 will be sent to app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaito v. Ellenbogen, 18039.
...not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for failure to comply with local rules as to form. See United States ex rel. Wilson v. Maroney, 395 F.2d 207 (3rd Cir. 1968). More importantly, the plaintiff failed to exhaust available state remedies. The state court hearing judge instruc......
-
Wilson v. Prasse
... ... Maroney, Superintendent, Norbert E. Welch, Deputy Superintendent, William C. Schnupp, Notary Public, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ... No. 17115 ... United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit ... Submitted on Briefs October 10, 1968 ... Decided ... ...
-
UNITED STATES EX REL. WALTON v. Russell
...When this is not done, the Court, in its discretion, may dismiss such a petition without hearing. United State of America ex rel. Wilson v. Maroney, Superintendent, 395 F.2d 207 (3rd Cir.). In any subsequent petitions which might be filed in this jurisdiction, it is most important and an ab......
- Engel v. United States, 23657.