Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 F.2d 445

Sweetney v. Johnston

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 18, 1941.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1941-06-18

1 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 463

Relies on United States ex rel. Bernstein v. Hill · O'Brien v. Swope · Bakersfield Abstract Co. v. Buckley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1941-06-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1960

1 state decisions

50194119501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Clarence Sweetney, in pro. per.

¶2WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

¶3Clarence Sweetney has tendered a petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to the Honorable Curtis D. Wilbur, United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California, entitled, In the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and it “respectfully shows to this Honorable Court”, etc.

¶4For the reasons stated in Ex parte Jefferson, 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 471, it will be assumed that this application is made to the Senior Circuit Judge rather than to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the reason that the court can issue writs of habeas corpus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, while the Senior Circuit Judge has co-ordinate jurisdiction with District Judges in considering a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 463(a); De Maurez v. Swope, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 530.

¶5The Senior Circuit Judge has consistently followed the decision of Circuit Judge Woolley of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, approved by that court, wherein the Circuit Judge declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus and thus disqualify himself from acting on an appeal from the final order in the proceedings where no reason is shown why the application could not, with equal propriety and facility, be presented to a United States District Judge or District Court. United States ex rel. Bernstein v. Hill, 3 Cir., 71 F.2d 159; O’Brien v. Swope, 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 471.

¶6Application denied.

/121/f2d/445 · .json · Public domain