From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. U.S. District Court

U.S.
Jun 5, 1950
339 U.S. 844 (1950)

Summary

holding that "denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order"

Summary of this case from Tourus Records v. D.E.A

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

No. 2, Misc.

Argued March 31, 1950. Decided June 5, 1950.

1. Whether one is a "citizen" for the purpose of in forma pauperis proceedings in the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is a question solely of federal law. Pp. 844-845.

2. Congress has not prescribed loss of citizenship for conviction of crimes other than desertion and treason. P. 845.

3. An order of a Federal District Court denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable to the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. P. 845.

4. Petitioner's motion in this Court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court is denied, because of the ambiguous state of the record in the case and the fact that denial of the motion will not prejudice further applications by petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. P. 845.

Motion denied.

Max Radin, acting under an assignment by the Court, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.


Petitioner, who is confined in a California state prison, sought to file a petition in forma pauperis for a writ of injunction in the District Court below. That court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because he was no longer a "citizen" as required by that section. The District Court reached that decision in reliance on California Penal Code § 2600, which provides that one sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years is deprived of his civil rights for the period of imprisonment. The decision of the District Court is in error. Citizenship for the purpose of in forma pauperis proceedings in the federal courts is solely a matter of federal law. Congress has not specified criminal convictions, except for desertion and treason, as grounds for loss of citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 801.

Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for allowance of an appeal from the order of the District Court. The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The Court of Appeals, however, held that it had "no power to grant an application for allowance of an appeal," and dismissed the petition.

Finally, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases. Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 72 (1949), and cases there cited. Because of the ambiguous state of this record, and the fact that a denial of this motion will not prejudice petitioner in further attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion must be denied.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Roberts v. U.S. District Court

U.S.
Jun 5, 1950
339 U.S. 844 (1950)

holding that "denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order"

Summary of this case from Tourus Records v. D.E.A

denying motion in Supreme Court for leave to file a petition for mandamus to challenge district court's order denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ruling, inter alia, that that order was immediately appealable to the court of appeals under the Cohen doctrine

Summary of this case from Fischer v. N.Y. State Dep't of Law

relying on Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, and § 1291 to conclude "[t]he denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order"

Summary of this case from Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

permitting without discussion interlocutory review under the collateral order exception of an order denying a party in forma pauperis status

Summary of this case from Devine v. Indian River County School Board

In Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), the Supreme Court held that an order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis was appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 and Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

Summary of this case from Holt v. Ford

In Roberts v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 955, 94 L.Ed. 1326, the petitioner, who was confined in a California state prison, was denied the right to proceed in forma pauperis by the United States District Court on the theory that California Penal Code, § 2600 had deprived petitioner of his citizenship, and therefore he was not a citizen as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915.

Summary of this case from McCollum v. Mayfield

In Roberts v. United States Dist. Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950) (per curiam), petitioner, a prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of injunction, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.

Summary of this case from Grant v. Blaine
Case details for

Roberts v. U.S. District Court

Case Details

Full title:ROBERTS v . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 5, 1950

Citations

339 U.S. 844 (1950)
70 S. Ct. 954

Citing Cases

Devine v. Indian River County School Board

Specifically, orders denying a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis or denying intervention as of…

Mitchell v. Forsyth

Nor will a decision on any of these questions be likely to require an analysis, research, or decision that is…