Task: songer_jurisdiction

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".If the opinion discusses challenges to the jurisdiction of the court to hear several different issues and the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear some of the issues but did not have jurisdiction to hear other issues, answer "Mixed answer". 

PER CURIAM.
Otto Bennett is a prisoner in the Maine state Prison serving a five to ten year sentence for statutory rape imposed in the Superior Court of the State of Maine for Knox County following a jury verdict of guilty. On appeal his exceptions were overruled and judgment ordered for the State. State of Maine v. Bennett, 158 Me. 109, 179 A.2d 812 (1962). In both courts Bennett was represented by counsel of unquestioned competence and diligence. In January of this year he filed application for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maine with an affidavit of poverty and a request for appointment of “advisory counsel.” That court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but denied Bennett’s request for appointment of counsel and summarily denied his application for habeas corpus on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for the reason that Bennett’s allegations constituted only an attack on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to support his conviction (assertions considered and rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine on Bennett’s appeal), and therefore failed to allege facts to show that Bennett was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States as required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3). Subsequently that court refused to issue a certificate of probable cause for appeal.
In this court Bennett has presented three “motions”:, 1) a “motion” for a certificate of probable cause for appeal, 2) a “motion” for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 3) a “motion” to amend his complaint to make the hackneyed charge that his conviction was obtained by the prosecuting authorities by the known use of perjured testimony and the known suppression of evidence in his favor.
An examination of the files discloses that the court below was clearly correct in its analysis of the allegations in Bennett’s application for habeas corpus. We shall therefore deny Bennett’s motion for a certificate of probable cause for appeal and also his motion for leave to proeeed in this court in forma pauperis. And we shall also deny Bennett’s motion for leave to amend his application for habeas corpus as not properly made in this court. Orders will be entered accordingly-

Question: Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A