William E. Allard, & v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, Etc., &, 423 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
William E. Allard, & v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, Etc., &, 423 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: William Lebron Church v. State of Tennessee Tennessee Board of Pardons and Paroles (ca6, 1989-04-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Lebron Church v. State of Tennessee Tennessee Board of Pardons and Paroles
6th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Wiggins v. Lockhart, 825 F.2d 1237, 1238 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1047 (1988); Schlang v. Heard, 691 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 951 (1983); Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam). 4 Accordingly, the motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, the district court's judgment is modified to reflect a dismissal with prejudice and the judgment as modified is affirmed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnny C. Wiggins v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1970) (mere conclusory allegation that the “revocation of his parole was arbitrary and capricious” inadequate).
cited Cited "see" Rivera v. Broomfield
N.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Allard v. 23 Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited "see" Capanis v. Clark
N.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970). 25 Capanis’ petition lists three clams: (1) he did not receive a fair trial because the judge (a) 26 told him he could not claim self-defense if he did not testify, (b) would not allow two defense 27 witnesses to testify, and (c) told the jury during closing arguments that “‘there is no self defense in 1 (3) the prosecutor “wrongfully admitted” irrelevant evidence about Capanis’ four prior weapons- 2 related and violent offenses, as well as irrelevant expert opinion evidence, id. 3 The petition fails to state a claim for fe…
cited Cited "see" Smith v. Pearman
N.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970). 27 1 B.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Price v. Bean
D. Nev. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Conclusory allegations which are 5 not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.” James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20 , 6 29 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding that conclusory 7 allegations in a habeas petition fail to state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden to the state 8 to answer an order to show cause).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allen v. Oliver
D. Nev. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a 12 statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.” James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 29 (9th Cir. 13 1994); see also Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding that conclusory 14 allegations in a habeas petition fail to state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden to the 15 state to answer an order to show cause).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William E. ALLARD, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
Louis S. NELSON, Warden, Etc., Respondent and Appellee
23962_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 24, 1970.
423 F.2d 1216
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173
William E. Allard, in pro. per., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., State of California, San Franciso, Cal., for appellee.
Madden, Claims, Carter, Trask.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Allard, a California state prisoner brought habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, to challenge revocation of parole by the California Adult Authority.

Allard was given an indeterminate sentence in 1960 for burglary. Shortly after a parole in 1964 he was charged with child molesting. His parole was suspended and a hearing granted before the California Adult Authority for violation of parole on two grounds,—

(1) child molesting under Penal Code, §§ 288 and 288a, and (2) drinking to excess.

At trial the Superior Court dismissed the child molesting charge. After the dismissal, Allard was interviewed by his parole officer and admitted hé and two companions consumed nearly three pints of whiskey on the day of the alleged child molesting offense.

The Adult Authority dismissed count 1 and found Allard had violated his parole as charged in count 2. Parole was revoked.

Allard’s mere conclusory allegation that the revocation of his parole was arbitrary and capricious does not raise a constitutional question. Williams v. Dunbar, (9 Cir. 1967) 377 F.2d 505, cert. denied 389 U.S. 866, 88 S.Ct. 131, 19 L.Ed.2d 137 (1967). The procedures followed by the Adult Authority do not violate due process, Williams v. Dunbar, supra, and do not raise substantial constitutional questions, Eason v. Dickson, (9 Cir. 1968) 390 F.2d 585, 588-589, cert. denied 392 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 2076, 20 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1968); Dunn v. California Dept. of Corrections, (9 Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 340, 342; Head v. Chavez, (9 Cir. 1969) 411 F.2d 1222, 1223.

Judgment is affirmed.