U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1957

Roosevelt Q. Bailey v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 16, 1957 · Danaher, Bastían, Burger

246 F.2d 698; 101 U.S. App. D.C. 11; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3618 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Robert L. Heald, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Walter R. Powell, Jr., Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this Court), was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Alfred Burka, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Roosevelt Q. Bailey v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Roland June Lindsey v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Fred Ginyard v. Donald C. Clemmer, Director, D. C. Department of Corrections (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Roberts v. People (Colo. 1965)
United States v. Smith (District Court, District of Columbia 1958)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, represented here by court-appointed counsel, alleges that the District Court erred in denying appellant a hearing claimed to be required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Originally appearing pro se, appellant had filed in the District Court an ineptly styled but verified motion. Treated for what the petitioner described it, i. e., a motion for reduction of sentence, the district judge’s action on the petition was proper. However, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings directed at the same ultimate objective we think the better course is to consider the petition as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, since the essential allegations are sufficiently set forth therein. The Government filed no response and raised no issue as to his allegations which, if substantiated, might entitle him to § 2255 relief. Cf. Price v. Johnston, 1948, 334 U.S. 266, 292, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356. The uncontroverted factual allegations of the petition must, for present purposes, of course, be accepted as true. Even if improbable and unbelievable, an opportunity to support them by evidence was called for, construing the petition as we now do. “On this record it is his right to be heard.” Walker v. Johnston, 1941, 312 U.S. 275, 287, 61 S.Ct. 574, 579, 85 L.Ed. 830; cf. Waley v. Johnston, 1942, 316 U.S. 101, 104, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302.

In these circumstances the interests of justice can best be served by remanding the petition for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith and the order of the District Court is reversed for that purpose.

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.