1. Whether one is a "citizen" for the purpose of
in forma
pauperis proceedings in the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 is a question solely of federal law. Pp.
339 U. S.
844-845.
2. Congress has not prescribed loss of citizenship for
conviction of crimes other than desertion and treason. P.
339 U. S.
845.
3. An order of a Federal District Court denying a motion for
leave to proceed
in forma pauperis is appealable to the
Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. P.
339 U. S.
845.
4. Petitioner's motion in this Court for leave to file a
petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court is denied
because of the ambiguous state of the record in the case and the
fact that denial of the motion will not prejudice further
applications by petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma
pauperis. P.
339 U. S.
845.
Motion denied.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, who is confined in a California state prison, sought
to file a petition
in forma pauperis for a writ of
injunction in the District Court below. That court denied leave to
proceed
in forma pauperis, holding that petitioner was not
entitled to the benefits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because he was no
longer a "citizen," as required by that section. The District Court
reached that decision in reliance on California Penal Code, § 2600,
which provides that one sentenced to imprisonment for a term
Page 339 U. S. 845
of years is deprived of his civil rights for the period of
imprisonment. The decision of the District Court is in error.
Citizenship, for the purpose of
in forma pauperis
proceedings in the federal courts, is solely a matter of federal
law. Congress has not specified criminal convictions, except for
desertion and treason, as grounds for loss of citizenship. 8 U.S.C.
§ 801.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit for allowance of an appeal from the order of the
District Court. The denial by a District Judge of a motion to
proceed
in forma pauperis is an appealable order. 28
U.S.C. § 1291;
see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U. S. 541
(1949). The Court of Appeals, however, held that it had "no power
to grant an application for allowance of an appeal," and dismissed
the petition.
Finally, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for leave to
file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases.
Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S. 55,
337 U. S. 72
(1949), and cases there cited. Because of the ambiguous state of
this record, and the fact that a denial of this motion will not
prejudice petitioner in further attempts to proceed
in forma
pauperis, the motion must be denied.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
