Richard X. Williams v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Richard X. Williams v. United States

317 F.2d 569

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1963

Docket17186_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 317 F.2d 569 (Richard X. Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard X. Williams v. United States, 317 F.2d 569 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On reconsideration sua sponte by the court en banc of the petition for a rehearing en banc of the petition for leave to prosecute this appeal without prepayment of costs, it is

Ordered by the court en banc that the order entered May 25, 1962, in Misc. No. 1819 by the court en banc denying the petition for rehearing en banc is hereby vacated, and appellant is hereby allowed to prosecute the appeal without prepayment of costs from this time on.

Statement of Chief Judge BAZELON: A division of this court denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. And a petition for rehearing en banc was denied, over my dissent. Thereafter court-appointed counsel volunteered to pay the fees and costs of appeal and a division of the court allowed such payment to save the appeal.

This action, as the dissent herein concedes, implies that an appeal which is denied in forma pauperis as frivolous may nevertheless be allowed upon payment of fees and costs. I respectfully disagree. In my opinion it is unmistakably clear from Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962), that access to the courts of appeals depends upon the existence of an issue not plainly frivolous; and that when the court determines that no such issue is presented, it cannot thereafter entertain the appeal upon the payment of fees and costs. It is because I think the instant case presents such an issue that I vote to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

I would grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis as of the date of the request therefor, and order reimbursement for counsel’s expenditures. For the purpose-of providing a majority for decision, I join in the court’s order today allowing the appeal in forma pauperis as of now, leaving open the question of reimbursement to counsel.

Circuit Judge EDGERTON has authorized me to say that he concurs in the-above statement.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On reconsideration sua sponte by the court en banc of the petition for a rehearing en banc of the petition for leave to prosecute this appeal without prepayment of costs, it is

Ordered by the court en banc that the order entered May 25, 1962, in Misc. No. 1819 by the court en banc denying the petition for rehearing en banc is hereby vacated, and appellant is hereby allowed to prosecute the appeal without prepayment of costs from this time on.

Statement of Chief Judge BAZELON: A division of this court denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. And a petition for rehearing en banc was denied, over my dissent. Thereafter court-appointed counsel volunteered to pay the fees and costs of appeal and a division of the court allowed such payment to save the appeal.

This action, as the dissent herein concedes, implies that an appeal which is denied in forma pauperis as frivolous may nevertheless be allowed upon payment of fees and costs. I respectfully disagree. In my opinion it is unmistakably clear from Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962), that access to the courts of appeals depends upon the existence of an issue not plainly frivolous; and that when the court determines that no such issue is presented, it cannot thereafter entertain the appeal upon the payment of fees and costs. It is because I think the instant case presents such an issue that I vote to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

I would grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis as of the date of the request therefor, and order reimbursement for counsel’s expenditures. For the purpose-of providing a majority for decision, I join in the court’s order today allowing the appeal in forma pauperis as of now, leaving open the question of reimbursement to counsel.

Circuit Judge EDGERTON has authorized me to say that he concurs in the-above statement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-x-williams-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack