Kirk v. Oklahoma

W.D. Oklahoma

Kirk v. Oklahoma

300 F. Supp. 453, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13857

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma

DecidedJune 23, 1969

DocketMisc. No. 22

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 F. Supp. 453 (Kirk v. Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirk v. Oklahoma, 300 F. Supp. 453, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13857 (W.D. Okla. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

The above Petitioner has mailed to this Court for filing in forma pauperis, a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The Petitioner is a prisoner confined by and in the State of Texas. The relief sought by the Petition is that he be discharged from a detainer placed on him as a Texas prisoner by the State of Oklahoma by dismissing the Oklahoma criminal charge on which the detainer is based.

This Court is without jurisdiction to dismiss the Oklahoma criminal case. The forum to which the Petitioner should make his request is the Oklahoma Court involved. Vaughn v. State of Missouri, 265 F.Supp. 933 (W.D.Mo.1967). In this connection, see Huston v. Kansas, 390 F.2d 156 (Tenth Cir. 1968) ; Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969) and Naugle v. Freeman, 450 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr.App.1969).

Pursuant to 28 United States Code 1915, the Court will not permit the filing of said Petition in this Court in forma pauperis for the reasons that said Petition is frivolous and Petitioner can make no rational argument on the law involved in the relief he requests of this Court nor on the facts involved therein. He thus has no right to proceed in forma pauperis. Tidmore v. Taylor, 323 F.2d 88 (Tenth Cir. 1963); Blair v. People of the State of California, 340 F.2d 741 (Ninth Cir. 1965); Durham v. United States, 400 F.2d 879 (Tenth Cir. 1968).

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

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

The above Petitioner has mailed to this Court for filing in forma pauperis, a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The Petitioner is a prisoner confined by and in the State of Texas. The relief sought by the Petition is that he be discharged from a detainer placed on him as a Texas prisoner by the State of Oklahoma by dismissing the Oklahoma criminal charge on which the detainer is based.

This Court is without jurisdiction to dismiss the Oklahoma criminal case. The forum to which the Petitioner should make his request is the Oklahoma Court involved. Vaughn v. State of Missouri, 265 F.Supp. 933 (W.D.Mo.1967). In this connection, see Huston v. Kansas, 390 F.2d 156 (Tenth Cir. 1968) ; Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969) and Naugle v. Freeman, 450 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr.App.1969).

Pursuant to 28 United States Code 1915, the Court will not permit the filing of said Petition in this Court in forma pauperis for the reasons that said Petition is frivolous and Petitioner can make no rational argument on the law involved in the relief he requests of this Court nor on the facts involved therein. He thus has no right to proceed in forma pauperis. Tidmore v. Taylor, 323 F.2d 88 (Tenth Cir. 1963); Blair v. People of the State of California, 340 F.2d 741 (Ninth Cir. 1965); Durham v. United States, 400 F.2d 879 (Tenth Cir. 1968).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F. Supp. 453, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-v-oklahoma-okwd-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack