Exhaustion Of State Remedies

3,028 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Word v. State OF N.C.
  406 F.2d 352· 4th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 68×
  The dissent argues that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 and controlling precedent like Ahrens v. Clark, habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to the district where the petitioner is physically present and in custody.
• Meadows v. Lon Evans
  550 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 67×
  The court held that a federal civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to relitigate the voluntariness of a guilty plea that has already been affirmed on direct appeal and denied on collateral attack in state court. The exhaustion requirement of 28 U.
• Whitner v. Mrs. Frederick W. Davis
  410 F.2d 24· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-03 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the Civil Rights Act does not always require such exhaustion, and the adequacy of the administrative remedy was not determined.
• Rubin F. Needel v. Palmer C. Scafati
  412 F.2d 761· 1st Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 66×
  The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting all relevant evidence and arguments to the state courts first. The state courts must be given the opportunity to rule on the complete record.
• United States ex rel. James Rogers v. Warden OF Attica State Prison
  381 F.2d 209· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 66×
  The court granted the petition for rehearing, rescinded its previous order, and remanded the case to the District Court to determine if the magistrate had sufficient information to find probable cause for the warrant.
• Whippler v. Balkcom
  342 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-03 ·cited 66×
  A state prisoner is not required to pursue state remedies if Georgia law is settled against post-conviction review of newly raised constitutional claims.
• Daugharty v. Gladden
  257 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the dismissal of Daugharty's state appeal due to his inability to afford a transcript violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus he had exhausted his state remedies.
• Jimenez v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  481 F.3d 1337· 11th Cir.· 2007-03-23 ·cited 65×
  Jose Jimenez, a death-row inmate, sought a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 1994 murder conviction. The Eleventh Circuit denied the COA application, finding that Jimenez failed to exhaust stat
• Passman v. Blackburn
  652 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the petitioner's arrest lacked probable cause, but the identification testimony was not a fruit of the poisonous tree and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of the show-up identification. Several other grounds for relief were als
• Hobbs v. Mayor Ronnie Thompson
  448 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 65×
  The court held that recent Supreme Court decisions on federal intervention do not preclude federal consideration of First Amendment claims against municipal ordinances, especially when the challenge is to employment conditions and not a pending criminal prosecution.
• Hewett v. State OF N.C.
  415 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 65×
  A bare possibility of adverse collateral consequences is enough to preserve the justiciability of litigation under mootness standards, even if the sentence has expired.
• Boyer v. City OF Orlando
  402 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-18 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in denying a writ of habeas corpus without requiring the petitioner to exhaust state remedies, and granted bail pending such exhaustion.
• Crosley Alexander Green v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  28 F.4th 1089· 11th Cir.· 2022-03-14 ·cited 64×
  Crosley Green, a state prisoner convicted of murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief challenging his convictions on constitutional grounds. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, finding t
• Knight v. Dugger
  863 F.2d 705· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 62×
• Campbell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  738 F.2d 1573· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of an evidentiary hearing and the rejection of the petitioner's claims.
• Ozzie Batchelor v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  693 F.2d 859· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that while the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his claims to the Oregon Supreme Court, federal review is permissible because no state remedies are currently available and the default was not a deliberate bypass. The court also affirmed
• Rachel v. Bordenkircher
  590 F.2d 200· 6th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments on the petitioner's post-arrest silence and failure to testify at trial violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, warranting reversal of the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Phelper v. Decker
  401 F.2d 232· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-06 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial judge's procedure for determining the voluntariness of consent to search was constitutionally adequate, and that any taint from a potential illegal arrest was dissipated by the voluntary consent. The court also held that a failure to prove an element
• Clutchette v. Procunier
  497 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of Preiser v. Rodriguez regarding exhaustion of state remedies was too strict, and that the inmates' claims regarding the duration of their confinement necessitated exhaustion.
• Holleman v. Duckworth
  700 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the admissibility of the confessions.
• Kelly v. Dowd
  140 F.2d 81· 7th Cir.· 1944-01-31 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the District Court properly dismissed the petitioner's habeas corpus petition and injunction request because federal courts should not interfere with state judicial and administrative processes unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• Hutchins v. Wainwright
  715 F.2d 512· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the prosecutor's introduction of out-of-court statements from an unidentified informant, and reliance on those statements in closing argument, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• Odell Aaron Hicks v. Louie L. Wainwright
  633 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 59×
  The denial of a continuance to present the sole expert witness on an insanity defense violated due process and warranted a writ of habeas corpus.
• Pope v. Sec'y FOR the Dep't OF Corr.
  680 F.3d 1271· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-15 ·cited 58×
  Thomas Dewey Pope was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Florida for the murder of Kristine Walters. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on Pope's guilt-phase ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
• United States ex rel. Thomas Trantino v. Hatrack
  563 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a state prosecutor cannot waive the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement, and the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his Brady claim.
• Moreno v. Henckel
  431 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 58×
  A federal court cannot abstain from hearing a civil rights case solely because a state remedy is available; the federal remedy under Section 1983 is supplementary and does not require exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies.
• Offet v. Solem
  823 F.2d 1256· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 57×
  The dissent argues that the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not apply to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions seeking monetary damages, even if the claim relates to the validity of good-time credit deprivation.
• Espey v. Louie L. Wainwright
  734 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 57×
  The district court abused its discretion by dismissing the habeas petition without allowing the petitioner to amend it to delete an unexhausted claim.
• Messelt v. State OF Ala.
  595 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-17 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the attorney's egregious conduct, including suggesting reindictment for leverage and proposing participation in a drug scheme, violated the petitioner's due process rights and rendered his trials fundamentally unfair.
• Achtien v. Dowd
  117 F.2d 989· 7th Cir.· 1941-02-19 ·cited 57×
  A federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not first exhausted available remedies in state court, even if the petitioner believes state remedies would be futile.
• Lucas v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  682 F.3d 1342· 11th Cir.· 2012-06-08 ·cited 56×
  Harold Gene Lucas was convicted in 1976 of the first-degree murder of sixteen-year-old Jill Piper and two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and was sentenced to death. On federal habeas review under AEDPA, Lucas raised five claims: (1) the trial court's admission of undisc
• Walberg v. Israel
  766 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 56×
  The dissenting judge believes the petitioner failed to prove denial of effective assistance of counsel, and that state court findings of fact should be presumed correct.
• Zicarelli v. Gray
  543 F.2d 466· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 56×
  The court did not definitively rule on the jury selection issue as it was not presented and the case's disposition made it unnecessary.
• Rice v. Wolff
  513 F.2d 1280· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a search warrant affidavit must establish probable cause on its face, and cannot be rehabilitated by post-search evidence not presented to the magistrate. It also held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies regarding the alternative ground for th
• Carter v. Estelle
  677 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the petitioner had met the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine and that his retrial and conviction for embezzlement violated the double jeopardy clause.
• Meadows v. Lon Evans
  529 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 55×
• Reiger v. Christensen
  789 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court must review the state trial record to determine if ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the admission of witness testimony regarding a "long police record" violated due process. Other claims were affirmed.
• In re the Application of Gary James Collins for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Gary James Collins v. Auger
  577 F.2d 1107· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the admission of the petitioner's confession, obtained during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation for competency, violated his due process rights and warranted habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. George T. Williams v. Elza Brantley
  502 F.2d 1383· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the petitioner was not required to exhaust state remedies by appealing the dismissal of his post-conviction petition because the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act is an ineffective remedy due to the state's strict res judicata and waiver doctrines.
• Brown v. United States
  483 F.2d 116· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-01 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to resentencing if a prior conviction obtained in violation of Gideon was considered by the sentencing judge, even if the prior conviction has not been invalidated in other collateral proceedings.
• Allen v. Perini
  424 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1970-04-07 ·cited 54×
  The Court held that a prisoner is not entitled to a default judgment or immediate release due to the state's failure to file a timely return in a habeas corpus proceeding, and the district court retains the power to dismiss the petition sua sponte for failure to exhaust state rem
• Simpson v. State
  211 So. 2d 862· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-06-11 ·cited 54×
  Simpson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After failing to timely appeal his conviction, he filed collateral attacks in state court and then a federal habeas corpus petition. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding he fa
• McCALL-BEY v. Franzen
  777 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 53×
  Federal courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements of dismissed cases; an independent basis for federal jurisdiction is required.
• Washington v. Harris
  650 F.2d 447· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding intent for the murder charge were not constitutionally erroneous, but remanded the issue of whether flawed instructions on other charges infected the murder conviction to state courts.
• Franklin v. State OF Or.
  662 F.2d 1337· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 52×
  A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte before issuing summonses only if it clearly lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Otherwise, proper procedural steps, including summons issuance, must be followed.
• Bisaccia v. The Attorney Gen. of the State of N.J.
  623 F.2d 307· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• White v. Lackland Bloom
  621 F.2d 276· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that complaints alleging § 1983 conspiracies between private parties and immune public officials must meet a special, more specific pleading standard than generally required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Russo v. Superior Court OF NEW Jersey
  483 F.2d 7· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to perceived jury exhaustion, without sufficient inquiry or evidence, did not constitute manifest necessity, thus barring reprosecution on double jeopardy grounds.
• NEY v. State OF Cal.
  439 F.2d 1285· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 52×
• Footman v. Singletary
  978 F.2d 1207· 11th Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 51×
  William Footman appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 1981 felony murder conviction, arguing that the district court erred in finding he had not exhausted state remedies by failing to present all instances of ineffective assistance of counse