Jarvis v. Nelson

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 440 F.2d 13, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10869

Decision Date: 4/8/1971

Docket Number: No. 26440

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10869 (9th Cir. 1971)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1971

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 209 decisions

209

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

193

1990s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

E.D. Cal.165

D. Haw.16

D. Nev.10

9th Cir.4

C.D. Cal.3

D. Alaska3

Most recently cited by10

2026Thornell D. Ariz.
2025(HC) Rose v. United States E.D. Cal.
2025(HC) Kelly v. Newsom E.D. Cal.
2025(HC)Howard v. Trate E.D. Cal.
2025(HC)Jackson v. Borla E.D. Cal.
2025(HC) Vera v. Kern County Superior Court Psych's E.D. Cal.
2025(HC) Evans v. Unknown E.D. Cal.
2025(HC) Dorise v. Trate E.D. Cal.
2025(HC)Gutierrez v. Warden, FCI Mendota E.D. Cal.
2025Lonnie Lee Poslof, Jr. v. Sircoya M. Williams E.D. Cal.

Cites 4 cases

Piche v. Rhay
Selz v. California
Pembrook v. Wilson
Wilson v. Wilson

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Robert J. JARVIS, Appellant, v. Louis S. NELSON, Warden, Appellee.

Attorneys

Robert J. Jarvis, in pro. per.
Gloria F. DeHart, John T. Murphy, Deputy Attys. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

majority PER CURIAM:

Jarvis appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that an illegally obtained confession was used against him in his state trial. The ground for the dismissal was that the petition did not state a claim for relief. The district court did not grant Jarvis leave to amend. The transcript of the state court proceeding in which the question of the legality of the confession was explored was not presented to the district court.

It may be that Jarvis' conclusory averments cannot be factually supported, but a petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. (See Pembrook v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 39 n. 4; Wilson v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1967) 372 F.2d 211, 212.) The district court could not rely on the factual determinations of the state court rejecting Jarvis’ claim because the transcript of the state trial was not before it. (Selz v. State of California (9th Cir. 1970) 423 F.2d 702; Piche v. Rhay (9th Cir. 1970) 422 F.2d 1309.)

The order is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.