Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

"In view of the foregoing, the State concedes that it cannot be said that the Petitioner 'contemplated that life would be taken.' Enmund v. Florida, [458] U. S. [782, 801] (... 1982)."

As I read that concession by the State, it means that there was no intent on petitioner's part to kill and, hence, that he could not be guilty of murder, let alone incur the death penalty.

But if the State's concession is indecisive and its language less than clear-as, evidently, a majority of the Members of this Court feels it to be-it seems to me that we should vacate the judgment entirely anyway, and let the Attorney General then clarify his concession to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in language that is plainly understood so that that court may act and proceed accordingly. Surely, it is not for this Court to interpret, in the first instance, the extent of the State's concession and measure its reach so begrudgingly as it does today.

Miscellaneous Orders

No.

CASTILLO v. UNITED STATES. Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

No. A-187. GLEASON v. UNITED STATES. Application for bail, addressed to JUSTICE BRENNAN and referred to the Court, denied.

No. A-242. AUTRY v. ESTELLE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Motion to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death, entered by JUSTICE WHITE on October 5, 1983 [post, p. 1301], denied.

No. A-295. COULTER v. ALABAMA. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to JUSTICE POWELL, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.

No. A-298. EVANS v. TEXAS. Application to continue the stay of issuance of the mandate of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, presented to JUSTICE WHITE, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.

No. D-348. IN RE DISBARMENT OF DAVIS. Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 461 U. S. 953.]

No. D-349. IN RE DISBARMENT OF BUTLER. Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 461 U. S. 954.]

[blocks in formation]

No. D-351. IN RE DISBARMENT OF HOFF. Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 462 U. S. 1102.]

No. D-352. IN RE DISBARMENT OF ROSENBERG. Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 462 U. S. 1102.]

No. D-373. IN RE DISBARMENT OF PERRI. It is ordered that Daniel Christopher Perri, of Pensacola, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-374. IN RE DISBARMENT OF MCGHEE. It is ordered that Milton Lorenzo McGhee, of Sacramento, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-375. IN RE DISBARMENT OF ITALIANO. It is ordered that Thomas J. Italiano, of Parma, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

It is ordered

No. D-376. IN RE DISBARMENT OF GOLDSTEIN. that George Edward Goldstein, of Pottstown, Pa., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-377. IN RE DISBARMENT OF MANDEL. It is ordered that David J. Mandel, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-378. IN RE DISBARMENT OF LORENZO. It is ordered that Samuel Lorenzo, of Sussex, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-379. IN RE DISBARMENT OF GROSSMAN. It is ordered that Neal L. Grossman, of Columbus, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

[blocks in formation]

It is ordered

No. D-380. IN RE DISBARMENT OF DESMOND. that Francis Patrick Desmond, of Thornton, Pa., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. 9, Orig. UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA ET AL. Motion of the Special Master for additional partial payment by Mississippi for services granted, and the Court approves payment of $12,500.00. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 459 U. S. 963.]

No. 80, Orig. COLORADO v. NEW MEXICO ET AL. Motion of New Mexico for leave to file a reply brief granted. Exceptions of New Mexico to the Additional Factual Findings of the Special Master are set for oral argument in due course. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 463 U. S. 1204.]

No. 80-1577. 455 U. S. 283. Court denied.

CITY OF MESQUITE v. ALADDIN'S CASTLE, INC.,
Motion of appellant to recall the judgment of this

No. 82-958. MCDONOUGH POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. GREENWOOD ET AL. C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 462 U. S. 1130.] Motion of Sheila Brewer for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time denied.

No. 82-1005. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL.;

No. 82-1247. AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE ET AL. v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL.; and

No. 82-1591. RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 956.] Motion of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. No. 82-1246. BOSE CORP. v. CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC. C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 904.] Motion of Marie Shibuya-Snell, Director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time denied.

[blocks in formation]

No. 82-6758. TURNER v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU ET AL. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 21, 1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS would grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

No. 82-6765. UNTERTHINER v. DESERT HOSPITAL DISTRICT OF PALM SPRINGS. Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 21, 1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 82-6778. BROWN v. HERALD CO., INC., DBA GLOBE DEMOCRAT PUBLISHING CO. C. A. 8th Cir.;

No. 82-6907. ALEXANDER v. TEXAS ET AL. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

No. 82-6956. CROSS v. SECRETARY OF STATE. Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist.;

No. 83-5040. ENO ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ET AL. C. A. 1st Cir.;

No. 83-5100. LINFIELD v. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. C. A. 2d Cir.; and

No. 83-5349. MILLER v. PIERCE, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of petitioners and appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners and appellant are allowed until November 21, 1983, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit petitions and a jurisdictional statement in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.

In each of these cases, the Court has denied petitioner's or appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis without initially addressing the issue whether the questions presented in the petition for certiorari or jurisdictional statement merit our plenary review-and the Court is apparently announcing today that this will

928

BRENNAN, J., dissenting

be our practice in the future. At a time when at least some of us proclaim that we are sorely pressed for adequate time to do our work, this treatment is both unfair and wasteful, and I respectfully dissent.

Ordinarily, a $200 filing fee must be paid before a petition for certiorari or a jurisdictional statement, properly conforming to the requirements of this Court's Rule 33, may be filed. This Court's Rule 45. However, 28 U. S. C. § 1915(a) provides that "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor." This Court's Rule 46.1, which implements this statute, provides that "[a] party desiring to proceed in this Court in forma pauperis shall file a motion for leave to so proceed, together with his affidavit in the form prescribed in Fed. Rules App. Proc., Form 4 . . . setting forth with particularity facts showing that he comes within the statutory requirements."2 If the motion is granted, no filing fee is charged, and a single typewritten petition or jurisdictional statement may be filed.

Each year, roughly 1,000 motions supported by affidavit are made for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. These motions usually accompany a petition for a writ of certiorari or a jurisdictional statement, and our practice heretofore has almost always been not to pass on the in forma pauperis motion but to proceed directly to grant or deny the petition based on the merits of the questions presented in the petition or statement. Yet in the instant cases, each of which presents questions so lacking in merit as to have virtually no chance of receiving a plenary hearing, the Court has chosen instead to focus initially on the affidavits supporting the in forma pauperis motions and to deny the motions.

'This new procedure emerged last Term, when in several instances the Court denied parties' motions to proceed in forma pauperis because the parties were deemed either not to be sufficiently poor or to have failed to file adequate affidavits.

2 Rule 46.1 further provides that "if the district court or the court of appeals has appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, the party need not file an affidavit."

3 Approximately 1,000 additional motions are filed in which Rule 46 does not require an affidavit.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »