In Re Robinson

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.

George W. Robinson, an inmate of Folsom State Prison, has filed in this court a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by the warden of said prison in that the said warden refuses to allow him to forward for filing a petition for a writ of mandate addressed to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, but instead has referred said petition for writ of mandate to the Adult

[628]

Authority of the State of California for a determination as to whether the petitioner’s civil rights should first be restored. •

Respondent has filed an answer and return, and it appears from the record that petitioner has been convicted of and is serving sentences on five counts of forgery. The conviction was in the Superior Court of Alameda County and the judgments were affirmed in

People

v.

Robinson,

102 Cal.App.2d 800 [228 P.2d 583]. In thé petition which he entitled “Petition for Writ of Mandate” petitioner seeks to have the District Court of Appeal of the First District direct the judge of the superior court to forward the original cheeks used as evidence against him in the criminal case to the United States Identification Bureau for examination as to handwriting. The Adult Authority refused to restore petitioner’s civil rights and refused to allow him to forward his so-called petition for writ of mandate to the District Court of Appeal for filing.

Respondent contends that his action was not an infringement of petitioner’s rights because: 1. The petition for habeas corpus does not lie in such a

case;

and, 2. Section 2600 of the Penal Code suspends the civil rights of felons.

Respondent argues that the demand of the right of access to a court in a civil action or controversy does not fender a prisoner’s detention under a valid judgment and commitment illegal and that neither he as warden “nor the authorities of the State of California have deprived petitioner of some right” to which he is “lawfully entitled under the Constitution or laws of this State or of the United States, the deprivation of which serves to make his imprisonment more onerous than the law allows.”