Legal Document

344 U.S. 143 73 Supreme Court Reporter 193 97 L.Ed. 153 DIXONv.DUFFY. Number 4. Argued Oct. 16, 1952. Decided Dec. 8, Mr. Franklin C. Stark, Oakland, Cal., for petitioner. Clarence Atlantic Linn, San Francisco, respondent. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case originated on October 21, 1950, when petitioner, a prisoner in Quentin, filed an application writ habeas corpus California. That court, summarily, but with two dissents, denied application. To review this decision, petitioner applied to certiorari. The granted petition, 341 938, 71 995, 95 1366, and thereafter appointed counsel represent 342 805, 72 32. 2 Attorney General California appeared At bar Court, he argued that judgment rested adequate nonfederal ground. Admitting is ordinarily available means prisoners challenge constitutionality proceedings which resulted incarceration, told us was unavailable particular case, becaue could have should presented his federal claim appeal from original conviction. Counsel vigorously opposed contention, insisting remedy under law, question properly before court. 3 course, does not sit determine matters state law; nor it appropriate forum resolve argument raised by earnest objections 4 Accordingly, we followed our precedents.1 We continued cause 'for such period' as would 'enable secure determination whether herein intended rest independent ground or decision necessary rendered.' 33, 34, 10, 11. (Emphasis supplied.) 5 December 1951, duly 'Petition Determination Basis Judgment' requested expression court issue order. Subsequently, Clerk received letter relative question. But no official 6 regard 'sufficient 'determination' order November 5, 1951.' Therefore, May 12, 1952, 'further continued' docket enable its earlier 343 393, 859. 7 Though some months now elapsed, still advice are informed, however, advised petitioner's informally doubted jurisdiction render determination. And, although subsequently submitted briefs contrary, again informed counsel, through Clerk, powerless, want jurisdiction, any further case. It appears, then, so long continues docket, cannot procure asked him procure. 8 certiorari 'because serious had been deprived rights Federal Constitution.' alone, final arbiter claim, grant entitle chance matter resolved Court—provided based If ground, be without pass upon Doubt has since arisen exists. These circumstances act deprive day Court,2 they do require take scrupulous care, often done before,3 jurisdiction. involves delay, delay regrettable. unless jurisdictional simply assuming nonexistence though fact one may exist. 9 end doubt resolved, vacate remand proceedings. A new entered, also rests ground.4 So ordered. 10 Judgment vacated remanded directions. 11 JACKSON, dissenting. 12 Both wisdom legality policy toward highest appear dubious me. What doing, essence, judgment, found inconsistent because us, acceptable degree formality, what reasons led rendering it. 13 blazed way practice dispensing opinions denying petitions discretionary orders, motions leave file corpus. Unless mean impose courts burden unwilling assume ourselves, judgment. justification exercising it; quite contrary rule. 14 Those few cases cited procedure persuasive. There examination Court's power vacate, results encourage repetition. In cases, reinstated State litigants were never heard again. Compare Minnesota versus National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 84 920; company State, 208 Minn. 607, 294 Northwestern KF135 N69 230; Tax Comm. Van Cott, 306 511, 59 605, 83 950, Cott Comm., 98 Utah 264, 96 Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series 740. another instance, pursued less drastic course; stayed own hand while clarification grounds decision. Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 65 459, 89 789, Id., 325 77, 954, 1483. 15 California, having promptly officially, albeit informally, feels itself make formal therein. One reason closed determination, we, certiorari, lifted record all, out & N Immigration Nationality Decisions say unreasonable refrain entering orders longer pending 16 plain truth irresponsible exercise requiring considering information. perfect right deny contention have, urged appeal. states allow retrial de novo via issues tried open record. seems me probable taken, not, intimates, general rule think wise proper one. probably will reaffirm reinstating upset today. dismissal candid admission improvidently lawful course. Loftus People Illinois, 1948, 334 804, 68 1212, 92 1737; 1945, 789. See Neilson Lagow, 1852, How. 98, 109—110, 909. e.g., Jennings 104, 123; supra; supra. 1940, Honeyman Hanan, 1937, 300 14, 57 350, 81 476. Cf.

Classification Label: 8