UNITED STATES Ex Rel. CERULLO v. FOLLETTE, WARDEN
Headline: Justice Harlan declines to extend the deadline to seek Supreme Court review and refuses emergency stay or bail, directing the applicant to ask the Court of Appeals first because the filing time remains and the mandate issued.
Holding: In a short memorandum, Justice Harlan denied an extension to file a petition for certiorari (a request for Supreme Court review), declined emergency stay or bail, and directed the Court of Appeals to consider bail first.
- No immediate extension of the filing deadline was granted.
- Applicant must seek bail or stay first from the Court of Appeals.
- No emergency stay or continued bail was provided by this Justice.
Summary
Background
An individual asked Justice Harlan for more time to file a petition for certiorari (a request for the Supreme Court to review the case). The applicant also asked for a stay of the Court of Appeals’ mandate and to continue release on bail while the Supreme Court considered the petition. The memorandum notes the deadline to file does not expire until December 31, 1969, and that the Court of Appeals’ mandate had already issued.
Reasoning
Justice Harlan concluded there was no present need to extend the filing deadline because sufficient time remained to prepare and file the petition. He treated the papers as a request for bail while the petition is considered, observed that the applicant had not first asked the Court of Appeals for that relief under the federal appellate rule, and said the appeals court should have the chance to consider the bail request before a Justice of this Court acts. The memorandum therefore did not grant an immediate stay of the mandate or order continued bail and cited the applicable procedural rule for handling such requests.
Real world impact
Practically, the applicant must file the petition by the existing deadline and should first seek bail or a stay from the Court of Appeals. The Justice did not provide emergency release or block the appeals-court mandate. This is a narrow procedural ruling about timing and process, not a final decision on the underlying legal dispute.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?