Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ples Elworth Russell and Roy Russell v. United States
308 F.2d 78
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1962-09-12
- Topic
- litigation
holding that “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | holding that 14 “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than 15 himself” | holding that “a litigant 16 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | stating that “[a] litigant appearing in propria persona has no 20 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | holding “a litigant 16 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | holding “a litigant 15 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | noting that “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | noting that “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | stating that “[a] litigant 6 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | stating that 9 “[a] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than 10 himself.” | stating that “[a] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 17 represent anyone other than himself.” | stating that “[a] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | finding a pro se litigant has “no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 21 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority 27 to represent anyone other than himself” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 24 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone 16 other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 14 represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 24 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 21 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria 14 persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 12 authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 15 represent anyone other than himself.” | “a litigant 26 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “A litigant 17 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | “a litigant 13 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “ litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent 12 anyone other than himself” | “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than 19 himself” | “a litigant appearing 23 in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 3 represent anyone other than himself” | ‘a litigant appearing in propria persona has no 21 authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “a litigant appearing in 2 propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 6 represent anyone other than himself” in a civil rights action.” | “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” | a litigant appearing in propria persona has no 24 authority to represent anyone other than himself. | “A litigant appearing [pro se] has no authority to represent 19 anyone other than himself.” | “A litigant appearing in propria per
Citator
- Cited by
- 123 opinions
Pies Elworth Russell has filed with the Chief Judge of this Court (a) a “Motion for Probation of Sentence,” invoking jurisdiction under Title 28, United States Code §§ 1291 and 1651(a), and (b) a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum,” in support of (a) above, invoking jurisdiction under Title 28 United States Code § 2241.
Pies Elworth Russell purportedly files both his motion and his petition on behalf of Roy Russell as well. Pies El-worth Russell alone signed it. Pies El-worth Russell is allegedly confined at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and Roy Russell at a federal institution at Terminal Island, San Pedro, California.
*79 Both the motion and the petition have been referred by the Chief Judge to this panel of the Court.
A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself. Cf. Carrigan v. California State Legislature et al., 9 Cir., 263 F.2d 560. There is, therefore, no matter presently before us presented by, or on behalf of, Roy Russell.
We turn to Pies Russell.
Title 28 of the United States Code § 1291 gives this Court jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. This is not an appeal from such a decision. We have no authority, in the absence of a timely appeal, to vacate a judgment of conviction, or to modify, or correct a sentence. Tesciona v. United States (1944) 9 Cir., 141 F.2d 811. Nor may we grant probation, nor modify it. That is the function of the court entering the judgment of conviction. Rule 32(c), Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.; 18 U.S. C. § 3651.
Title 28 of the United States Code § 1651(a) authorizes this court to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction. With respect to a matter not within its jurisdiction, it has no power to issue writs in aid thereof.
Title 28 of the United States Code § 2241 authorized the issuance of writs of habeas corpus by this court. That writ has been held broad enough to authorize this court to issue an order, in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, requiring that a prisoner be brought before it for the purpose of arguing his appeal. Price v. Johnston, Warden, (1948) 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356. Title 28, U.S.C. § 2241(c) (5) permits a prisoner to be brought into court by the writ when necessary to testify.
There being no matter before us over which we have jurisdiction, there is no necessity for testimony in this court.
The “Motion for Probation of Sentence” is denied. The “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum” is denied.