DOUGLAS
v.
GREEN, SUPERINTENDENT, MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An indigent prisoner in an Ohio penitentiary challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's requirement that criminal appellants pay docket fees to appeal their convictions, arguing it violated equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court held that the prisoner stated a valid constitutional claim and that federal habeas corpus was an appropriate remedy, reversing the lower courts' dismissals and remanding the case to allow the prisoner to first seek relief in the Ohio Supreme Court, consistent with the Court's decision in Burns v. Ohio regarding the inadequacy of charging indigent defendants appellate fees.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted. Petitioner, a prisoner in an Ohio penitentiary, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Among other claims, the petitioner alleged that the Ohio Supreme Court did not provide him, as an indigent criminal defendant, an adequate remedy for the prosecution of an appeal from his conviction without payment of docket fees. This deficiency was urged, as we read this lay petitioner’s informal pro se application for the writ, as a violation of the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. See Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S.
252. The writ of habeas corpus was in effect denied by the District Court, that court denying petitioner, for want of merit, leave to proceed in forma pauperis before it. The District Court further denied a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and the Court of Appeals sustained this action on the renewal of the motion before it.
We hold that petitioner’s allegations in the application for the writ made out a case of deprivation of his constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws by Ohio in respect to his appeal from the conviction in the criminal prosecution against him. Clearly federal habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy under these circumstances. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 467-468; Burns v. Ohio, supra, at 262 (dissenting opinion).
In view of our decision in Burns as to the validity of the former Ohio practice, and Ohio’s conformance, as we are advised, to the requirements of that decision, we think that the District Court should suspend a hearing on the writ for a reasonable time to allow petitioner to reapply to the Ohio Supreme Court for consideration of his appeal. Upon that court’s action thereon, the District Court should proceed, upon hearing, to make such appropriate order in the premises, as under the circumstances “law and justice require.” 28 U.
S. C. § 2243. It may at that time consider, in the posture in which the case then stands, petitioner’s other claims as to the constitutional adequacy of Ohio’s appellate procedure in respect of his original conviction and his application for state collateral relief. To this end, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)…U. S. 200, 204. The rule of exhaustion “is not one defining power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise of power.” Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 27. Cf. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519; Douglas v. Green, 363 U. S. 192. The reasoning of Ex parte Royall and its progeny suggested that after the state courts had decided the federal question on the merits against the habeas petitioner, he could return to the federal court on habeas and there relitigate the question,…1 / 2
-
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962)…nsistent with the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Eskridge v. Washington State Board, 357 U. S. 214; Ross v. Schneckloth, 357 U. S. 575; Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252; Douglas v. Green, 363 U. S. 192; McCrary v. Indiana, 364 U. S. 277; Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708, in which comparable state rules and practices, effectively limiting the poor person’s access to courts ostensibly open to all, similarly have been found vulnerable. See Brown v. U…
-
Moore v. DeYOUNG, 515 F.2d 437 (3d Cir. 1975)…es to the appropriate exercise of power.’ Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 27 [59 S.Ct. 442, 446, 83 L.Ed. 455]. Cf. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 [72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3]; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 [72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541]; Douglas v. Green, 363 U.S. 192 [80 S.Ct. 1048, 4 L.Ed.2d 1142].” 372 U.S. at 418-20, 83 S.Ct. at 837. The teaching derived from these authorities may be stated as: (1) federal courts have “pre-trial” ha-beas corpus jurisdiction; (2) that jurisdiction without exhaustion should…
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
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1959)