Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Petition of Ray BECKER, for a Writ of Mandamus, v. Honorable J. Stanley WEBSTER, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, 1931 — 52 F.2d 1082 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Petition of Ray BECKER, for a Writ of Mandamus, v. Honorable J. Stanley WEBSTER, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington
52 F.2d 1082·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Petition of Ray BECKER, for a Writ of Mandamus, v. Honorable J. Stanley WEBSTER, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington.
Undocketed.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 1931.
Ray Becker, in pro. per.
• Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner applied to the judge of' the court below for a writ of habeas corpus and requested that the court appoint counsel to represent him in the proceeding and permit him to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted petitioner’s request to prosecute the proceeding in forma pauperis, but denied his request for the appointment of counsel to represent him for want of lawful authority to grant such a request. We might add at this point that petitioner prays this court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis, although, as already stated, the court below granted his request to do so. It is alleged in the petition before us that the court below has taken no action on the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and petitioner prays that we issue a writ of mandamus directing the judge of the court below to do so. It is not urged that the court below has refused to act upon or to hear petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. On the contrary, it appears that the court is ready and willing to do so when the matter is presented to it.
The petition is therefore denied.