Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Roberts v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844 (1950)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1950-06-05
- Topic
- bankruptcy
holding that “denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order” | holding that denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis is immediately appealable | holding that denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis is immediately appealable | holding that denial of an IFP motion is an appealable order | holding that denial of an IFP motion is an appealable order | holding that denial of an IFP motion is an appealable order | holding that denial of an IFP motion is an appealable order | holding that denial of an IFP motion is an appealable order | suggesting that even in the civil context the constitutional right to court access and due process require an appellate court to review de novo a trial court’s certification that an IFP appeal is not taken in good faith | granting in forma pauperis status after liti- gant filed an amended application | allowing immediate appeal from the denial of in forma pauperis status | denying motion in Supreme Court for leave to file a petition for mandamus to challenge district court’s order denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ruling, inter alia, that that order was immediately appealable to the court of appeals under the Cohen doctrine | “The denial by a district judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” | “An order denying leave to proceed in the district court in forma pauperis is appealable.” | "The denial by a district judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order." | “The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” | denial by a district judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order | “the denial by a district judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” | "[A] prisoner may file an appeal to contest the district court's conclusion that he is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. " | order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is immediately appealable as a collateral order | “An order denying leave to proceed in the district court in forma pauperis is appealable.” | “[t]he denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” | denial by district judge of motion to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable order | denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis immediately appealable | denial of leave to proceed in forma pauper-is immediately appealable | denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis is appealable order | order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis | order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis | order staying civil suit until plaintiff released from prison | order denying in forma pauperis status | order denying in forma paupe-ris status | order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis | order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis | order denying in forma pauperis status immediately appealable | order staying civil suit until plaintiff released from prison | orders denying in forma pauperis status immediately appealable | granting leave to proceed IFP
Citator
- Cited by
- 115 opinions
Petitioner, who is confined in a California state prison, sought to file a petition in forma pauperis for a writ of injunction in the District Court below. That court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of 28 U. S. C. § 1915 because he was no longer a “citizen” as required by that section. The District Court reached that decision in reliance on California Penal Code § 2600, which provides that one sentenced to imprisonment for a term *845 of years is deprived of his civil rights for the period of imprisonment. The decision of the District Court is in error. Citizenship for the purpose of in forma pauperis proceedings in the federal courts is solely a matter of federal law. Congress has not specified criminal convictions, except for desertion and treason, as grounds for loss of citizenship. 8 U. S. C. § 801.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for allowance of an appeal from the order of the District Court. The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order. 28 U. S. C. § 1291; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). The Court of Appeals, however, held that it had “no power to grant an application for allowance of an appeal,” and dismissed the petition.
Finally, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases. Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S. 55, 72 (1949), and cases there cited. Because of the ambiguous state of this record, and the fact that a denial of this motion will not prejudice petitioner in further attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion must be denied.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.