Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 F.2d 946

Docket No. 6496.

Sanders v. Beach

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nov. 21, 1960.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-11-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It may be that the action is frivolous and without merit and it is quite likely that the district judge had personal knowledge of facts which would sustain that conclusion. There is, however, nothing in the record to that effect, and the allegations in the petition must be taken as true.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1960-11-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1995

5 federal appellate ·

301960197019801990decided

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 →

William P. DeMoulin, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Ruth C. Streeter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N.M. (James A. Borland, U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N.M., was with her on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRATTON, PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Robert C. Sanders, while serving a sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution at La Tuna, Texas, brought this replevin action against the United States Marshal for the District of New Mexico seeking the return to him of personal property which included clothing and money in excess of $3,000. The petition is inartfully drawn and in many respects is incomplete, but in essence it alleges that the Marshal unlawfully took from the plaintiff the described articles which are now in his possession.

¶2

The trial court permitted the petition to be docketed in forma pauperis and immediately dismissed it without a hearing or service upon the Marshal, on the grounds that it was 'frivolous and without merit.' It may be that the action is frivolous and without merit and it is quite likely that the district judge had personal knowledge of facts which would sustain that conclusion. There is, however, nothing in the record to that effect and the allegations in the petition must be taken as true. The order of dismissal is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

/283/f2d/946 · .json · Public domain