In re Miller

126 F.2d 826, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 21, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 126 F.2d 826 (In re Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Miller, 126 F.2d 826, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266 (9th Cir. 1942).

Opinion

GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner is imprisoned in the California State Prison at San Quentin under a commitment of a state court of California. Successively, he has applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the Superior Court, the District Court of Appeal, • and the Supreme Court of the State of California, and the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Each court, in turn, denied his application. No appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order of the state Supreme Court denying the application for the writ. He now presents to this court an application for leave to prosecute herein a petition for writ of habeas corpus in forma pau-peris.

Two reasons exist which demonstrate the lack of merit in petitioner’s application: (1) This court is empowered to issue writs of habeas corpus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; and (2) lower federal courts should not grant a writ of habeas corpus where petitioner is detained under state process, save where exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown to exist. See In re Anderson, 9 Cir., 117 F.2d 939, 940, and cases there cited.

“Moreover, in view of the delicate question of interference by inferior Federal courts with the judgment of the courts of a sovereign state of the Union which is presented by an application such as this, it appears to be the approved practice that if such an application is to be presented after exhaustion of the State judicial rem[827]*827edies, it should be made directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. [Cases cited.]” Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 122 F.2d 417, 419; Hogue v. Duffy, Warden, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 864.

The application is denied.

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

Related

Edwards v. Schmidt
321 F. Supp. 68 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1971)
Plaine v. Burford, Warden
180 F.2d 724 (Tenth Circuit, 1950)
Mason v. Webb
142 F.2d 584 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
Ex Parte Hawk
321 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Johnson v. Wilson
131 F.2d 1 (Fifth Circuit, 1942)
Hawk v. Olson
130 F.2d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
Wheeler v. Kaiser
45 F. Supp. 937 (W.D. Missouri, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 F.2d 826, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-miller-ca9-1942.