Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 F.2d 308

Stanley v. Swope

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1938.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1938-04-12

2 counsel of record

Relies on Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co. · Bradford v. Southern Railway Co. · In re Wragg

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1938-04-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1963

13 federal appellate ·

501938194019501960decided

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 →

¶1Mr. Stanley appeared in his own behalf.

¶2No other appearances.

¶3Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Wilbur Stanley filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on an appeal from the orders of the District Court denying his applications for release from prison upon his petition for writ of habeas corpus in that behalf. The trial court denied a similar application for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and certified that in his opinion the assignments of error and brief in support thereof are so frivolous in their nature as to show that petitioner’s appeal is not taken in good faith and that “the court so finds and certifies”. The statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 832, upon which the application to proceed in forma pauperis is based provides that authority may be given under the circumstances set forth in the act “unless the trial court shall certify in writing that in the opinion of the court such appeal or writ of error is not taken in good faith.” The right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is entirely statutory. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 35 S.Ct. 236, 59 L.Ed. 457. In the absence of express statutory authority this court has no right to allow a party to prosecute an *309appeal in forma pauperis. Bradford v. Southern Ry. Co., 195 U.S. 243, 25 S.Ct. 55, 49 L.Ed. 178.

¶6While the language of the statute denying the right to proceed in forma pauperis in the teeth of such a certificate by the trial judge is clear on the face of the statute, it may be added that on March 8, 1938, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Matter of Wragg, Farm Debtor, 95 F.2d 252, denied an application to proceed in forma pauperis under such •circumstances.

¶7Petition denied.

/99/f2d/308 · .json · Public domain