Legal Opinion
Willie James King v. State of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 4, 1966No. 20362_1PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
This is an appeal in forma pauperis with appointed counsel in this court from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See in this connection People v. King, 30 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1963), affirmed as to King, 32 Cal.Rptr. 825, 384 P.2d 153 (1963) cert. den. 379 U.S. 865, 85 S.Ct. 134, 13 L.Ed.2d 69 (1964).
We affirm for two reasons.
1. There is no individually named respondent to whom any writ might issue. The party under whose custody the prisoner is detained has not been named, or served. This is a fatal defect. Morehead v. State of California, 339 F.2d 170,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McNally v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Homer K. Morehead v. State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- People v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Wesley Robert Wells, and v. The People of the State of California, AndCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Harry Roberts, Jr. v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, KansasCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Limmie West, III v. State of LouisianaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Paul Ashley, AKA Walter Paul Foster v. The State of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Amos Marshall Arketa v. Lawrence E. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Cuevas v. WilsonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1966
- Osborn v. Commonwealth, Court of Common PleasDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.