TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Larry C. Glouser v. F.E. Van Alstine, Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southerndistrict of Iowa

Larry C. GLOUSER, Petitioner, v. F. E. VAN ALSTINE, Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Respondent

Glouser v. F.E. Van Alstine, Clerk of the United States Dist. Court for the Southerndistrict of Iowa, 313 F.2d 199 (8th Cir. 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 12, 1963
Docket
No. 17263_1
Judges
Johnsen, Matthes, Per Curiam
Citations
313 F.2d 1991963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6174

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to require respondent, as Clerk of the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to make filing, as a motion under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., in petitioner’s criminal case, of an instrument captioned by him “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence”.

According to petitioner, respondent takes the position that the instrument, despite its caption, is not a matter which petitioner is entitled to have filed in the criminal case but represents “a new case”, and that petitioner therefore may not have it filed except upon payment of the regular docketing fee or by obtaining leave from the Court to proceed in'forma pauperis.

Any controversy between petitioner and respondent over filing rights in the District Court is a matter for that Court and not this Court to deal with in the first instance. Until there has been an application to the District Court for an order, and that Court has denied the application or has failed to act in relation to it under circumstances amounting to neglect, no basis exists for this Court to take cognizance of the matter. And should the matter become cognizable on this basis, we would not undertake to grant relief, unless it appeared that the situation was one in which the District Court was without a power of discretion, or, if discretion was entitled to be exercised, that this had been abused.

The application of petitioner, which has been presented in the form of a letter, with pauperis showing, will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, but the issuance of a writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 219742026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Roy Harding Gallington and Wilbur Eugene Streeter488 F.2d 637 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. United States v. Joseph J. Shapiro491 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1974)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Roy Harding Gallington and Wilbur Eugene Streeter488 F.2d 637 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. United States v. Joseph J. Shapiro491 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list