Harry Carlisle, Appellant, v. Herman R. Landon, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellee, 219 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1955)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 219 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1955) February 8, 1955
As Amended April 15, 1955

Stanley Fleishman, Esther Shandler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Arlene Martin, Max F. Deutz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and BONE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the petitioner, Harry Carlisle, in habeas corpus, from a judgment of the United States District Court which denied him his liberty pending final determination of proceedings before the immigration authorities to deport him.1  In the course of the hearings referred to, Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court ordered petitioner's release, pending decision of this court upon the appeal, upon his giving a bail bond in the sum of $5,000. Petitioner-appellant furnished bond and he was released and he has been at large ever since.

The deportation proceedings have now been completed and petitioner-appellant has finally been ordered deported.

We therefore hold that this appeal is moot. United States ex rel. Spinella v. Savoretti, 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 364, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 975, 73 S. Ct. 1124, 97 L. Ed. 1390.

Appeal dismissed.

 1

For derivative history of the Carlisle case, see: Carlson v. Landon, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 183; Stevenson, Hyun, and Carlisle v. Landon, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 190 (191 for Carlisle); Carlson, Stevenson, Hyun and Carlisle v. Landon, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 991, 1000;

Action by the U. S. Supreme Court on 187 F.2d 991, 1000:

Bail granted, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S. Ct. 744, 95 L. Ed. 1353;

Certiorari granted, 342 U.S. 807, 72 S. Ct. 26, 96 L. Ed. 610;

9th Circuit affirmed, 342 U.S. 524, 72 S. Ct. 525, 96 L. Ed. 547;

Rehearing denied, 343 U.S. 988, 72 S. Ct. 1069, 96 L. Ed. 1375.

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.