St. Clair E. Miller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Hyman Pleasure Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 425 F.2d 1205 (2nd Cir. 1970)
Linked as:
Text
St. Clair E. Miller, pro se.
Before WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges, and ZAMPANO,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is an outgrowth of two previous unsuccessful actions in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which reached us under the titles Miller v. Miller, 2 Cir., 296 F.2d 283 (1961), and Miller v. Pleasure, 2 Cir., 296 F.2d 283, cert. denied,
In Miller v. Pleasure, supra, a panel consisting of Judges Clark, Hincks and Friendly expressed serious doubt concerning the appealability of a similar order but resolved this in appellant's favor and denied relief on the merits. See also Muhammad v. McGinnis, 362 F.2d 587 (2 Cir. 1966). We are now convinced otherwise. As pointed out in the previous opinion, the statement in Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950), upholding the appealability of an order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is not truly apposite. Such an order closes the door to the courthouse to a plaintiff having a right to enter if he is indigent as he claims; an order declining to request an attorney to represent him simply denies an added facility in the prosecution of his claim which Congress has left to the discretion of the court. The growing burdens on the courts of appeals, with nearly three times as many appeals in 1969 as in 1960, see Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director, 1969, Table II-4, requires us to look on appeals alleged to come under the "collateral order" doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), with greater care than a decade ago. See West v. Zurhorst, 2 Cir., 425 F.2d 919. Appeals from orders declining to appoint counsel in civil in forma pauperis cases are peculiarly burdensome, since determination whether the district judge abused his discretion requires considerable exploration of the merits.
The motion is denied and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Notes:
* Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 1915 - Sec. 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis
- U.S. Supreme Court - Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844 (per curiam) (1950)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - St. Clair E. Miller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hazel Lee Miller, Defendant-Appellee., 296 F.2d 283 (2nd Cir. 1961)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Wallace H. Muhammad, A/K/a Lamont Holliday, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul D. Mcginnis, Commissioner of Correction for the State of New York, and Agents Thereof, Including the Warden of Green Haven Prison, Stormville, N. Y., Defendants-Appellees., 362 F.2d 587 (2nd Cir. 1966)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
