IN RE ANDERSON
Application for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis in this court is denied because without merit for two reasons: One, our power as a court to issue such writs is in aid of our appellate jurisdiction only. De Maurez v. Swope, 100 F.2d 530; Ferguson v. Swope, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 152; De Maurez v. Swope, 9 Cir., 110 F.2d 564. Two, the lower federal courts should not consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus where the petitioner is detained under state process save in exceptional cases. Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, 27 S.Ct. 459, 51 L.Ed. 760; Ex parte Melendez, 9 Cir., 98 F.2d.791; Ex parte Penney, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 27; Ex parte Jefferson, 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 471.
This is not such a case.
Application denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1944)
-
Hawk v. Olson, 130 F.2d 910 (8th Cir. 1942)
-
In re Miller, 126 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1942)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1907)
- Ferguson v. Swope, 109 F.2d 152 (9th Cir. 1940)
- Ex parte Penney, 103 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1939)
- O'Brien v. Swope, 106 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1939)
- De Maurez v. Swope, 100 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1938)
- Bakersfield Abstract Co. v. Buckley, 100 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1938)
- Bakewell v. United States, 110 F.2d 564 (8th Cir. 1940)