John Collins, Appellant, v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden of California State Prison at Folsom, Appellee, 217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1954)
Annotate this CaseRehearing Denied December 13, 1954
John Collins, Represa, Cal., in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen. of California, for appellee.
Before ORR and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and YANKWICH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, Collins v. Heinze, D.C.N.D. Cal., 125 F. Supp. 186, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. An alleged error not covered by the District Court's opinion has been presented, towit, that the District Court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to represent appellant in the presentation of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. A habeas corpus proceeding is in the nature of a civil action and, hence, there is no requirement that counsel be appointed in such a proceeding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
