TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Milliken v. McCauley

MILLIKEN v. McCAULEY, Warden

Milliken v. McCauley, 93 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 11, 1937
Docket
No. 8644
Judges
Stephens
Citations
93 F.2d 6451937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2884

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is confined in the penitentiary of the State of Washington for a state offense, and appellee is the warden of such institution.

Appellant filed a petition in the United States District Court of Washington, Southern Division, directed to said warden, claiming that he was, and is, illegally imprisoned by reason of' an ex post facto application of a state statute. The court required the warden to show cause why the writ should not issue and thereafter rendered an opinion upon the merits, but also concluded the opinion with the holding that the facts did not bring the matter within 28 U.S.C.A. § 453 , and that therefore the court was without jurisdiction. The court denied the issuance of the writ and petitioner appealed to this court.

This short outline of the proceedings is given in order that our determination on the appeal may not be misunderstood. It appears from the record that there are numerous other inmates of the same institution who are vitally interested in the points made in appellant’s petition. Our ruling here is not intended to touch the merits of such points and should not be allowed to prejudice any other action appellant may be advised to take.

The petition upon its face shows that no application for the writ had been made to a competent court of the State of Washington and no good cause is shown why this had not been done. Hall v. People of State of California, 9 Cir. 1935, 79 F.2d 132 ; McCauley v. Palmer, 9 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 1017 .

The order denying the writ is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11941: 21945: 11956: 119402026peak 1941 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. House110 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1940)
  2. Ex parte Sharpe36 F. Supp. 386 (W.D. Ky. 1941)
  3. Ex parte Stonefield36 F. Supp. 453 (W.D. Ky. 1941)
  4. Thompson v. Graham138 F. Supp. 544 (D. Utah 1956)
  5. Ex parte Lyon58 F. Supp. 746 (D.N.H. 1945)

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. Graham138 F. Supp. 544 (D. Utah 1956)
  2. Ex parte Lyon58 F. Supp. 746 (D.N.H. 1945)
  3. Ex parte Sharpe36 F. Supp. 386 (W.D. Ky. 1941)
  4. Ex parte Stonefield36 F. Supp. 453 (W.D. Ky. 1941)
  5. United States v. House110 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1940)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hall v. State of Cal., 79 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1935) 17
McCauley v. Palmer, 91 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1937) 4

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