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 whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations