Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nowakowski Vs. Maroney

Nowakowski vs Maroney

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-10-1967
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101714

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
386 U.S. 542
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nowakowski

Respondent

Maroney

Excerpt

.....nowakowski subsequently petitioned the court of appeals for the third circuit to allow him to appeal in forma pauperis from the district court's denial of relief. he also asked to be allowed to proceed in the court of appeals on written briefs, and sought the appointment of counsel. that court denied the petition in the following order: "upon consideration of appellant's petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to file handwritten briefs, and for appointment of counsel in the above-entitled case;" "it is ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, denied." following the third circuit's denial of nowakowski's petition for rehearing, he sought a writ of certiorari from this court. it was granted, as was his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 384 u.s. 984. we hold that the court of appeals erred in denying the petitioner the right to appeal after the district judge had issued a § 2253 certificate of probable cause. it is established law that a circuit judge or justice entertaining an application for a certificate should give "weighty consideration" to its prior denial by a district judge. sullivan v. heinze, 250 f.2d 427, 429; sokol, federal habeas corpus § 17, at 94 (1965). cf. in re woods, 249 f.2d 614, 616. but when a district judge grants such a certificate, the court of appeals must grant an appeal in forma pauperis (assuming the requisite showing of poverty), and proceed to a disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure. the order of the court of appeals for the third circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Full Judgment

Nowakowski v. Maroney - 386 U.S. 542 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court Nowakowski v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 542 (1967)

Nowakowski v. Maroney

No. 222

Argued March 13, 1967

Decided April 10, 1967

386 U.S. 542

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

When a federal district judge grants a certificate of probable cause necessary to allow a state prisoner to appeal a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, the court of appeals must allow an indigent petitioner to appeal in forma pauperis and dispose of the case in accordance with it ordinary procedure.

Vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, a prisoner in the Pennsylvania penal system, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He alleged, among other things, that his appointed counsel in the state trial which resulted in his conviction had been ineffective, and that he had therefore been denied the aid and assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 . The District Court granted Nowakowski a hearing and appointed a lawyer to assist him. Following the hearing, and "[v]iewing the record of the trial and the habeas corpus hearing as a whole," the court concluded that Pennsylvania "cannot be convicted of denying effective aid and assistance of counsel to the relator. . . ." However, the District Judge issued the certificate of probable cause necessary to allow a person in state custody to appeal a denial of federal habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Page 386 U. S. 543

The lawyers who assisted the petitioner at the habeas hearing were then allowed to withdraw by the District Court. Nowakowski subsequently petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to allow him to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court's denial of relief. He also asked to be allowed to proceed in the Court of Appeals on written briefs, and sought the appointment of counsel. That court denied the petition in the following order:

"Upon consideration of appellant's petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to file handwritten briefs, and for appointment of counsel in the above-entitled case;"

"It is ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, denied."

Following the Third Circuit's denial of Nowakowski's petition for rehearing, he sought a writ of certiorari from this Court. It was granted, as was his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 384 U.S. 984.

We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner the right to appeal after the District Judge had issued a § 2253 certificate of probable cause. It is established law that a circuit judge or justice entertaining an application for a certificate should give "weighty consideration" to its prior denial by a district judge. Sullivan v. Heinze, 250 F.2d 427, 429; Sokol, Federal Habeas Corpus § 17, at 94 (1965). Cf. In re Woods, 249 F.2d 614, 616. But when a district judge grants such a certificate, the court of appeals must grant an appeal in forma pauperis (assuming the requisite showing of poverty), and proceed to a disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure.

The order of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial