From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lipscomb v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 29, 1962
301 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1962)

Opinion

No. 17336.

March 29, 1962.

Jacques R. Welden, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal. for appellee.

Before HAMLEY, HAMLIN and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.


Robert E. Lipscomb, a federal prisoner at Alcatraz, has appealed from an order of the district court denying leave to file in forma pauperis an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable because it did not dispose of the application on the merits.

An order denying leave to proceed in the district court in forma pauperis is appealable. Roberts v. United States, 339 U.S. 844, 845, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326; Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 24, 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. 3. The issue to be decided on such an appeal is whether denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis was warranted. See Anderson v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 258 F.2d 479, 483.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly denied. Appellant's opening brief, now on file, refers to events subsequent to entry of the district court order which present the question of whether this appeal, or the case itself, have become moot. The parties are requested to discuss this question of mootness in their briefs yet to be filed.


Summaries of

Lipscomb v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 29, 1962
301 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1962)
Case details for

Lipscomb v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Robert E. LIPSCOMB, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 29, 1962

Citations

301 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

Tripati v. First Nat. Bank Trust

"The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order." Roberts v.…

Spires v. Bottorff

We take jurisdiction as of a final judgment because the result of the ruling is to effectually preclude…