Harris v. Ellis

194 F.2d 604, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 15, 1952
Docket13755_1
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 194 F.2d 604 (Harris v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Ellis, 194 F.2d 604, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820 (5th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final order by a court of the United States in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State Court. Under the provisions of Section 2253, Title 28 U.S.C., a certificate of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite to such an appeal. The appellant does not present such certificate but, on the contrary, there appears in the record an order of the district judge denying such certificate.

The record standing thus, and the judges of this court, after an examination of the record, being of the opinion that the dis *605 trict court rightly denied the petition 1 and that upon the authority of Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 116, 117, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 764, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 203, 204, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, there exists no probable cause for an appeal, and declining to issue such certificate, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

1

. In denying the petition the district court assigned as grounds for its decision:

“a. Such petition does not show that petitioner is held in custody of the Statute Authorities in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States.
“b. Such petition does not show that petitioner has exhausted his remedies in the State Court, nor does it show an extraordinary condition which would permit or require this court to take jurisdiction in the absence of his exhausting his remedies in the State Court. See Darr v. Burford, U.S. — [339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761].”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parsons v. Moore
199 F.2d 952 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Henson v. Ellis
199 F.2d 952 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Kells v. Ellis
199 F.2d 710 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Henley v. Moore, Warden
199 F.2d 752 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Davis v. Ellis
199 F.2d 754 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Seymour v. Ellis
196 F.2d 495 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 F.2d 604, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-ellis-ca5-1952.