Case Name: Julius Chris FISHERMAN, Appellant, v. Walter D. ACHUFF, etc., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-04-09
Citations: 392 F.2d 587
Docket Number: No. 21598
Parties: Julius Chris FISHERMAN, Appellant, v. Walter D. ACHUFF, etc., Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Julius Chris FISHERMAN, Appellant, v. Walter D. ACHUFF, etc., Appellee.
No. 21598.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 9, 1968.
John Alan Montag (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Robert H. Francis (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and ROGER D. FOLEY, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court is reversed.
We do not believe appellant's contention about a nunc pro tunc order of the state trial judge rises to federal constitutional dimensions. Further, we are satisfied with California's handling of it. People v. Fisherman, 237 Cal.App.2d 356, 47 Cal.Rptr. 33, 35.
Somewhere, we believe that Fisherman is entitled to a hearing on his allegations about his guilty plea and his allegations about denial of effective representation of counsel at his probation revocation-resentencing hearing.
We suggest that the district court might well order that it will delay any hearing for 45 or 60 days to see if the California courts will not provide Fisherman a hearing on the points that as pleaded seem to merit inquiry. And, the district court may direct Fisherman to seek the state relief. After such a period, the district court may then decide whether it needs a hearing to comply with this court's views.
Nothing said hereinabove should be understood to prevent the district court at some time requiring the appellant to make his allegations less conclusory.