United States v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 02 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26457.,26457. |
| Citation | 467 F.2d 1380 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Roney R. NUNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis S. NELSON, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Tamal, California, People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Roney R. Nunes, in pro. per.
Nancy S. Reller, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Eric Collins, Deputy Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, District Judge.*
While a state prisoner, following convictions for robbery, burglary and grand theft, appellant took a direct appeal which is now pending in the appellate courts of California. In April 1970, he filed with the district court a habeas corpus petition, in which he sought an order entitling him to inspect certain items of evidence in the possession of local officials for use in preparing a future petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and also an order prohibiting prison authorities from pursuing a variety of practices said to deny him reasonable access to the courts.
The district court denied the petition for habeas corpus and granted a certificate of probable cause, limiting this appeal to two issues: 1) petitioner's right to discovery, and 2) the availability of federal habeas corpus to review the conditions of imprisonment. After this appeal was taken, appellant was released from custody and has been on parole since November 1971.
We affirm the denial of the writ. Appellant is not entitled to a discovery order to aid in the preparation of some future habeas corpus petition. We agree with the district judge that:
On the issue of alleged illegal conditions of imprisonment, appellant is not in custody nor subject to any pending parole revocation proceedings, and he therefore presents no justiciable claim for relief. We affirm the order of the district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Collom
...1964); United States v. Herrera, 474 F.2d 1049 (CA5 1973); Hoover v. United States, 416 F.2d 431 (CA6 1969); United States ex rel. Nunes v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1380 (CA9 1972) (habeas corpus); Taylor v. United States, 238 F.2d 409 (CA9 1956) (§ 2255 motion); Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002 (CA10......
-
Van Pilon v. Reed
...cause, we have not squarely addressed the issue of whether we are bound by such a limitation. See United States ex rel. Nunes v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Choate v. Wilson, 363 F.2d 543, 545 (9th Cir.1966). But see Choate, 363 F.2d at 546 (Hamley, J., concurring) (e......
-
Maccollom v. U.S., 73--1659
...for a writ of habeas corpus. Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282, 286, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470 (1969). This court in United States ex rel. Nunes v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1380 (1972), was presented with a somewhat similar, although not identical, issue. In that case, a state prisoner sought to 'ins......
-
Vicaretti v. Henderson
...probable cause in connection with habeas corpus appeals has been used in several circuits, without discussion. United States ex rel. Nunes v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1972); Nelson v. Moore, 470 F.2d 1192, 1194 n.1 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 3017, 37 L.Ed.2......