From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 12, 1962
308 F.2d 78 (9th Cir. 1962)

Summary

holding that “ litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”

Summary of this case from Sales v. United Rd. Servs.

Opinion

Misc. No. 1481.

September 12, 1962.

Ples Elworth Russell in pro. per. No appearance for respondent.

Before BARNES, JERTBERG and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.


Ples Elworth Russell has filed with the Chief Judge of this Court (a) a "Motion for Probation of Sentence," invoking jurisdiction under Title 28, United States Code §§ 1291 and 1651(a), and (b) a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum," in support of (a) above, invoking jurisdiction under Title 28 United States Code § 2241.

Ples Elworth Russell purportedly files both his motion and his petition on behalf of Roy Russell as well. Ples Elworth Russell alone signed it. Ples Elworth Russell is allegedly confined at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and Roy Russell at a federal institution at Terminal Island, San Pedro, California.

Both the motion and the petition have been referred by the Chief Judge to this panel of the Court.

A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself. Cf. Carrigan v. California State Legislature et al., 9 Cir., 263 F.2d 560. There is, therefore, no matter presently before us presented by, or on behalf of, Roy Russell.

We turn to Ples Russell.

Title 28 of the United States Code § 1291 gives this Court jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. This is not an appeal from such a decision. We have no authority, in the absence of a timely appeal, to vacate a judgment of conviction, or to modify, or correct a sentence. Tesciona v. United States (1944) 9 Cir., 141 F.2d 811. Nor may we grant probation, nor modify it. That is the function of the court entering the judgment of conviction. Rule 32(c), Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.; 18 U.S.C. § 3651.

Title 28 of the United States Code § 1651(a) authorizes this court to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction. With respect to a matter not within its jurisdiction, it has no power to issue writs in aid thereof.

Title 28 of the United States Code § 2241 authorized the issuance of writs of habeas corpus by this court. That writ has been held broad enough to authorize this court to issue an order, in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, requiring that a prisoner be brought before it for the purpose of arguing his appeal. Price v. Johnston, Warden, (1948) 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356. Title 28, U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) permits a prisoner to be brought into court by the writ when necessary to testify.

There being no matter before us over which we have jurisdiction, there is no necessity for testimony in this court.

The "Motion for Probation of Sentence" is denied. The "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum" is denied.


Summaries of

Russell v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 12, 1962
308 F.2d 78 (9th Cir. 1962)

holding that “ litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”

Summary of this case from Sales v. United Rd. Servs.

holding “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”

Summary of this case from Npimnee v. State

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Armstead v. Haynes

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Feamster v. Gaco W., LLC

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself

Summary of this case from Longshore v. Sinclair

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Quigley

holding "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Grissom

holding "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Bailey v. Clark Cnty.

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Walker v. Evans

holding that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Weidman v. Friedman

holding "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself'

Summary of this case from Reed v. Board of Prison Terms

noting that “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”

Summary of this case from Gardner v. Brown

stating that " litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself."

Summary of this case from Salazar v. Clark

stating that " litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself."

Summary of this case from Montana v. Bullock

stating that " litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself."

Summary of this case from Figueroa v. Clark

noting that "a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"

Summary of this case from Blume v. California

stating that " litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself."

Summary of this case from Rood v. Lockwood
Case details for

Russell v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Ples Elworth RUSSELL and Roy Russell, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 12, 1962

Citations

308 F.2d 78 (9th Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Quigley

While pro se plaintiffs may appear on their own behalf, they may not appear as attorneys for others in a…

Saddozai v. Atchley

See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria…