From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. Heinze

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 13, 1954
217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1954)

Opinion

No. 14367.

November 22, 1954. Rehearing Denied December 13, 1954.

John Collins, Represa, Cal., in pro. per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen. of California, for appellee.

Before ORR and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and YANKWICH, District Judge.


On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, Collins v. Heinze, D.C.N.D.Cal., 125 F. Supp. 186, the judgment 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.


Summaries of

Collins v. Heinze

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 13, 1954
217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1954)
Case details for

Collins v. Heinze

Case Details

Full title:John COLLINS, Appellant, v. Robert A. HEINZE, Warden of California State…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 13, 1954

Citations

217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1954)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Gooding

1. The constitutional guarantees of the benefit of counsel to a defendant in the trial of a criminal…

U.S. ex Rel. Young v. Super., Greenhaven Corr. Fac.

This court is not to be expected to retry the issues which were thus disposed of in the state court." Collins…