NOWAKOWSKI
v.
MARONEY, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT
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.
The Court of Appeals erred in denying a prisoner the right to appeal after the District Court had issued a certificate of probable cause.
A state prisoner sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief but issued a certif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The petitioner, a prisoner in the Pennsylvania penal system, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He alleged, among other things, that his appointed counsel in the state trial which resulted in his conviction had been ineffective, and that he had therefore been denied the aid and assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. The District Court granted Nowakowski a hearing and appointed a lawyer to assist him. Following the hearing and “[vjiewing the record of the trial and the habeas corpus hearing as a whole” the -court concluded that Pennsylvania “cannot be convicted of denying effective aid and assistance of counsel to the relator . . . .” However, the District Judge issued the certificate of probable cause necessary to allow a person in state chstody to appeal a denial of federal habeas corpus. 28 U. S. C. § 2253. The lawyers who assisted the petitioner at the habeas hearing were then allowed to withdraw by the District Court. Nowakowski subsequently petitioned the Court, of Appeals for the Third Circuit to allow him .to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court’s denial of relief. He also asked to be allowed to proceed in the Court of Appeals on written briefs and sought the appointment of counsel. That court denied the petition in the following order:
“Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to file handwritten briefs; and for appointment of counsel in the above-entitled case;
“It is ORDERED that the petition be and it hereby is denied.”
Following the Third Circuit’s denial of Nowakowski’s petition for rehearing, he sought a writ of certiorari from this Court. It was granted, as was.his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 384 U. S. 984.
We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in denying. the petitioner the right to appeal after the District Judge had issued a § 2253 certificate of probable cause. It is established law that a circuit judge or justice entertaining an application for a certificate should give “weighty consideration” to its prior denial by a district judge. Sullivan v. Heinze, 250 F. 2d 427, 429; Sokol, Federal Habeas Corpus § 17, at 94 (1965). Cf. In re Woods, 249 F. 2d 614, 616. But when a district judge grants such a certificate, the court of appeals must grant an appeal in forma pauperis (assuming the requisite showing of poverty), .and proceed to a disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure.
•The order of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983)…of Appeals was of the view that by giving the parties unlimited opportunity to brief and argue the merits as they saw fit, the requirements set forth in this Court’s cases, such as Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U. S. 464 (1968), Nowakowski v. Maroney, 386 U. S. 542 (1967), and Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968), were satisfied. As the court understood those cases, when a certificate of probable cause is issued by the district court, the court of appeals must give the parties an opportunity to address th…1 / 3
-
Carafas v. Lavallee, 391 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1968)…967, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed here. We granted the petition, 389 U. S. 896 (1967), to consider whether, because of facts to which we later refer, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal conformed to our holding in Nowakowski v. Maroney, 386 U. S. 542 (1967). But first we must consider the State’s contention that this case is now moot because petitioner has been unconditionally released from custody. Petitioner applied to the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus in June 1963.…1 / 2
-
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969)…ndings on conflicting evidence, should have decided that this does not present the reviewable issue of law and on its own motion have dismissed the appeal as frivolous.” 327 U.S. at 113, 66 S.Ct. at 467, 90 L.Ed. at 566; Nowakowski v. Maroney, 1967, 386 U.S. 542, 87 S.Ct. 1197, 18 L.Ed.2d 282; and Carafas v. La Vallee, 1968, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1562, 20 L.Ed.2d 554, 561: “Although Nowahowshi does not necessarily require that the Court of Appeals give the parties full opportunity to submit briefs an…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Matter of Clifford Coleman Woods for a Certificate of Probable Cause, 249 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1957)
- United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Heinze, 250 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1957)
- Laurence Anthony v. United States, 250 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1957)
- Schack v. Bogart, 384 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1966)
- Austin v. Kentucky, 385 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1966)