John Collins v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden of California State Prison at Folsom
This text of 217 F.2d 62 (John Collins v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden of California State Prison at Folsom) 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.
Opinion
On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, Collins v. Heinze, D.C.N.D.Cal., 125 F.Supp. 186, the judgement of the District Court is affirmed. An alleged error not covered by the District Court’s opinion has been presented, towit, that the District Court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to represent appellant in the presentation of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. A habeas corpus proceeding is in the nature of a civil action and, hence, there is no requirement that counsel be appointed in such a proceeding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
217 F.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-collins-v-robert-a-heinze-warden-of-california-state-prison-at-ca9-1954.