Robert E. Lipscomb v. Paul J. Madigan, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, 309 F.2d 130 (9th Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert E. Lipscomb v. Paul J. Madigan, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, 309 F.2d 130 (9th Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Darwin Clark Bailey (ca5, 1972-11-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Darwin Clark Bailey (2×)
5th Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
In the Allen case itself the supplemental instructions were not given until the jury had been out for six and onehalf hours." 309 F.2d at 130 (Wisdom, J., dissenting). 15 Crabb, History of English Law 287 (1829), cited in Note, 31 U.Chi.L.Rev. 386 n. 1 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert E. LIPSCOMB, Appellant,
v.
Paul J. MADIGAN, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, Appellee
17336_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 19, 1962.
309 F.2d 130
Jacques R. Welden, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., and Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Hamley, Hamlin, Browning.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Robert E. Lipscomb, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Alcatraz, appeals from an order of the district court denying leave to file, in forma pauperis, an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Leave was denied to proceed with the habeas corpus proceeding in forma paup-eris on the ground that Lipscomb should first present his asserted ground for relief in a 28 U.S.C., § 2255 proceeding brought in the sentencing court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

This appeal was taken on March 30, 1961. It has come to our attention that thereafter, on April 28, 1961, Lipscomb complied with the procedure prescribed in the district court order here under review, by instituting a section 2255 proceeding in the sentencing court. Having followed the procedure specified in the district court order, Lipscomb has in effect abandoned his appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but without prejudice as to any question sought to be raised on the appeal.