126 F.2d 826 - In re Miller — 126 F.2d 826

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1971

5 federal appellate ·

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.

¶1John Russell Miller, in pro. per.

¶2No other appearances entered.

¶3Before GARRECHT and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.

¶5The petitioner is imprisoned in the California State Prison at San Quentin under a commitment of a state court of California. Successively, he has applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the Superior Court, the District Court of Appeal, • and the Supreme Court of the State of California, and the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Each court, in turn, denied his application. No appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order of the state Supreme Court denying the application for the writ. He now presents to this court an application for leave to prosecute herein a petition for writ of habeas corpus in forma pau-peris.

¶6Two reasons exist which demonstrate the lack of merit in petitioner’s application: (1) This court is empowered to issue writs of habeas corpus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; and (2) lower federal courts should not grant a writ of habeas corpus where petitioner is detained under state process, save where exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown to exist. See In re Anderson, 9 Cir., 117 F.2d 939, 940, and cases there cited.

¶7“Moreover, in view of the delicate question of interference by inferior Federal courts with the judgment of the courts of a sovereign state of the Union which is presented by an application such as this, it appears to be the approved practice that if such an application is to be presented after exhaustion of the State judicial rem*827edies, it should be made directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. [Cases cited.]” Kramer v. State of Nevada, 9 Cir., 122 F.2d 417, 419; Hogue v. Duffy, Warden, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 864.

¶8The application is denied.