In petitioner's application to a Federal District Court for a
writ of habeas corpus, his allegation that the Supreme Court of
Ohio did not provide him, as an indigent criminal defendant, with
an adequate remedy for the prosecution of an appeal from his
conviction without payment of docket fees made out a case of denial
of equal protection of the laws. Therefore, certiorari is granted,
the judgment denying a writ of habeas corpus is reversed, and the
cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in
the light of
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.
S. 252. Pp.
363 U. S.
192-193.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis is
granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted.
Petitioner, a prisoner in an Ohio penitentiary, filed an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio. Among other claims, the petitioner
alleged that the Ohio Supreme Court did not provide him, as an
indigent criminal defendant, an adequate remedy for the prosecution
of an appeal from his conviction without payment of docket fees.
This deficiency was urged, as we read this lay petitioner's
informal
pro se application for the writ, as a violation
of the Federal Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of
the laws.
See Burns v.
Ohio, 360
Page 363 U. S. 193
U.S. 252. The writ of habeas corpus was, in effect, denied by
the District Court, that court denying petitioner, for want of
merit, leave to proceed
in forma pauperis before it. The
District Court further denied a motion for leave to appeal
in
forma pauperis, and the Court of Appeals sustained this action
on the renewal of the motion before it.
We hold that petitioner's allegations in the application for the
writ made out a case of deprivation of his constitutional right to
the equal protection of the laws by Ohio in respect to his appeal
from the conviction in the criminal prosecution against him.
Clearly, federal habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy under these
circumstances.
See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.
S. 458, 467-468;
Burns v. Ohio, supra, at
360 U. S. 262
(dissenting opinion). In view of our decision in
Burns as
to the validity of the former Ohio practice, and Ohio's
conformance, as we are advised, to the requirements of that
decision, we think that the District Court should suspend a hearing
on the writ for a reasonable time to allow petitioner to reapply to
the Ohio Supreme Court for consideration of his appeal. Upon that
court's action thereon, the District Court should proceed, upon
hearing, to make such appropriate order in the premises, as under
the circumstances "law and justice require." 28 U.S.C. ยง 2243. It
may, at that time, consider, in the posture in which the case then
stands, petitioner's other claims as to the constitutional adequacy
of Ohio's appellate procedure in respect of his original
conviction, and his application for state collateral relief. To
this end, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to
the District Court.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.