From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Nickoloff

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 19, 1931
52 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1931)

Opinion

October 19, 1931.

Action between Justus Johnson and Peter J. Nickoloff and another. Motion or petition by the former for leave to prosecute, from the judgment rendered, an appeal in forma pauperis.

Motion denied.

Herman Weinberger, of San Francisco, Cal., and Louis K. Pratt, of Fairbanks, Alaska, for petitioner.

Albrecht Taylor, of Fairbanks, Alaska, for respondent.

Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.


This is a motion or petition filed by Justus Johnson, appellant, for leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis under the Act of June 27, 1922, c. 246, 42 Stat. 666 (28 USCA § 832). This statute expressly limits the parties entitled to take advantage of its provisions to "any citizen of the United States entitled to commence any suit or action, civil or criminal, in any court of the United States. * * *" The cases uniformly hold that in order to proceed thereunder one must be a citizen of the United States. Volk v. B.F. Sturtevant Co. (C.C.A.) 99 F. 532; The Memphian (D.C.) 245 F. 484; The Bennington (D.C.) 10 F.2d 799. Petitioner claims to be a citizen of the United States by reason of having filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen on July 15, 1931, and because of long-continued residence in the territory of Alaska, lasting over a period of about twenty years. This is not sufficient, as a person does not become a citizen of the United States until the procedure of naturalization has been fully complied with and an order divesting him of his former nationality and making him a citizen of the United States has been signed by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. 26 Op. Attys. Gen. 611. The petitioner, not being a citizen of the United States, is not entitled to the benefits of the statute which he seeks to invoke, and the petition must for that reason be denied.

There is a further reason for denying this petition, in that there is nothing in the affidavits accompanying the petition showing the grounds upon which he bases his appeal. In this respect there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the statute. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 35 S. Ct. 236, 59 L. Ed. 457.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Nickoloff

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 19, 1931
52 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1931)
Case details for

Johnson v. Nickoloff

Case Details

Full title:JOHNSON v. NICKOLOFF et al

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 19, 1931

Citations

52 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1931)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Karnuth

There could have been no naturalization during minority. Petition of Sproule, D.C., 19 F. Supp. 995; Johnson…

United States v. Neelly

If, in fact, plaintiff ever did appear before the clerk of the court at White Plains, New York, and if he did…