United States ex rel. Major v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

E.D. Pennsylvania

United States ex rel. Major v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

231 F. Supp. 868, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6660

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 20, 1964

DocketMisc. No. 2732

StatusPublished

This text of 231 F. Supp. 868 (United States ex rel. Major v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Major v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 231 F. Supp. 868, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6660 (E.D. Pa. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

BODY, District Judge.

In this habeas corpus petition relator alleges that the sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is illegal and in direct violation of his Constitutional Rights. The petition is poorly drawn and it is difficult to comprehend the essential details of the allegations. However, it appears that relator, by his counsel, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. It is not certain whether the court has disposed of the said petition, and whether any further action has been taken by petitioner in the state courts.

Consequently, this Court cannot entertain or dispose of the instant petition until there has been an exhaustion of the remedies available in the state courts. United States ex rel. Drew v. Myers, 327 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1964). To enable relator to prepare a proper petition a copy of Local Rule 37 will be attached to this memorandum by the Clerk of the Court.

ORDER

And now, this twentieth day of July, 1964, it is ordered that the petition of Ernest Major for a writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court forward to Ernest Major a copy of Local Rule 37 of this Court.

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

BODY, District Judge.

In this habeas corpus petition relator alleges that the sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is illegal and in direct violation of his Constitutional Rights. The petition is poorly drawn and it is difficult to comprehend the essential details of the allegations. However, it appears that relator, by his counsel, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. It is not certain whether the court has disposed of the said petition, and whether any further action has been taken by petitioner in the state courts.

Consequently, this Court cannot entertain or dispose of the instant petition until there has been an exhaustion of the remedies available in the state courts. United States ex rel. Drew v. Myers, 327 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1964). To enable relator to prepare a proper petition a copy of Local Rule 37 will be attached to this memorandum by the Clerk of the Court.

ORDER

And now, this twentieth day of July, 1964, it is ordered that the petition of Ernest Major for a writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court forward to Ernest Major a copy of Local Rule 37 of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F. Supp. 868, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-major-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-paed-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack