PROCTOR v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY
No. 77-5898.
Decided April 17, 1978
Per Curiam.
A Federal District Court entered a final order denying the petitioner habeas corpus relief. Under federal law the petitioner had a statutory right to appellate review of that decision. 28 U. S. C. § 2253. Because it appears that effective appellate review may not have been accorded in this case, the writ of certiorari is granted, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The petitioner pleaded guilty to narcotics and firearms violations in the Criminal Court, of Baltimore City and was sentenced to a term of 20 years in the Maryland state penitentiary. In 1975, after exhausting state post-conviction remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that several specific constitutional violations had occurred in the state prosecution. The District Court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner, pro se, took an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order of the District Court in the following language:
“PER CURIAM:
“A review of the record and of the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from the order of the district court denying relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is without merit. Accordingly, the order is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court. Blizzard v. Mahan, C/A No. 76-0117-CRT (E. D. N. C., Sept. 13, 1976).
“AFFIRMED.”
Clearly, this per curiam order has nothing whatsoever to do with the petitioner’s case. He had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a civil rights action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. He had sought relief in a federal court in Maryland, not one in North Carolina. The case of Blizzard v. Mahan, in short, is wholly unrelated to the petitioner’s case.
It may be that the petitioner’s contentions are wholly frivolous. But it is not enough that a just result may have been reached. “[T]o perform its high function in the best way 'justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’ Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955); cf. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 26 (1967). Accordingly, in the exercise of our power to' “require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances,” 28 U. S. C. § 2106, we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to it for further consideration.
It is so ordered.
The petition for certiorari in No. 77-939, Blizzard v. Mahan (denied, post, p. 951), shows that the Court of Appeals’ per curiam order in that case (filed on the same day as the order in the present case) is identical to the one quoted in the text above.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.