Tate
Tate v. People of the State of California
Opinion
Opinion
The appellant sought to file a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court denied the right to file such a petition in forma pauperis. Since the record before does not show appellant made “affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor” as required by the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 , it was proper to deny the right to file on this ground alone. The court held that the petition should be denied filing because no “exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency,” required the issuance of the writ to free petitioner from custody on a conviction affirmed by the appellate courts of the State. See Huffman v. Smith, 9 Cir., 172 F.2d 129 . Later, the judge signed a certificate of probable cause in order to permit appeal.
The waste of judicial time in dealing with efforts of this habitual offender against law to break from confinement, which the courts have found necessary in order to protect innocent members of society from his crimes, are set out below.
1-4-46, People v. Tate, 72 Cal.App.2d 467 , 164 P.2d 556 ; 1-14-46, People v. Tate, 72 Cal.App.2d 472 , 164 P.2d 556 ; 4-3-47, People v. Tate, 78 Cal.App.2d 894 , 178 P.2d 470 ; 4-14—47, People v.…