Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Dolan v. Alvis
  186 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1951-01-19 ·cited 8×
  A prisoner unable to pay required fees to file in state court has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes.
• Washington v. Smyth
  167 F.2d 658· 4th Cir.· 1948-04-08 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts require exhaustion of state remedies before issuing a writ of habeas corpus, and Virginia provides adequate state remedies.
• Barton v. Smith
  162 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1947-05-27 ·cited 8×
  A federal court will not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner has first exhausted all available remedies in the state courts, even if time limits for those remedies have expired.
• Mason v. Webb
  142 F.2d 584· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-14 ·cited 8×
  A federal court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner unless all state remedies, including appellate remedies, have been exhausted, and the case presents exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency.
• Slaughter v. Wright
  135 F.2d 613· 4th Cir.· 1943-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, as the petition itself did not demonstrate entitlement to the writ.
• Saboff v. ST. John's River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  200 F.3d 1356· 11th Cir.· 2000-01-18 ·cited 7×
  The Saboffs sued the St. John's River Water Management District in state court for inverse condemnation and state constitutional violations, which were dismissed. After the state appeal was denied, they filed federal claims in district court based on the same facts. The Eleventh
• Farrell v. Lane
  939 F.2d 409· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted on his claims by failing to raise them in state court and did not demonstrate sufficient cause to excuse this default for federal habeas review.
• Graham v. Broglin
  922 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 7×
  A prisoner seeking work release, which is a less restrictive form of custody but not outright freedom, should bring a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus petition.
• Smith v. Dugger
  888 F.2d 94· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it would not address the Hitchcock issue on a petition for rehearing because the petitioner had not yet presented the claim to the state courts, which is required by the exhaustion rule.
• Palmariello v. Superintendent OF M.C.I. Norfolk
  873 F.2d 491· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate constitutional error in his state court conviction.
• Mills v. Crim. Dist. Court # 3
  837 F.2d 677· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the dismissal of the section 1983 claim against the judge and prosecutor was proper due to immunity, the dismissal against the court-appointed attorney should be without prejudice to allow for potential amendment. Claims undermining a conviction must fir
• Nissan Motor Corp. IN U.S.A. v. Harding
  739 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction because the case presented an unsettled issue of state law regarding the retroactive application of a statute, which could resolve the federal constitutional question.
• Hall v. Wainwright
  565 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and precluded from federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. Other claims were either exhausted or could be considered on their merits.
• Prescher v. Crouse
  431 F.2d 209· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the delay in processing Prescher's post-conviction appeal was not solely attributable to the state and did not constitute a denial of due process, thus federal habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Denis P. Kelly v. Butler Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs
  399 F.2d 133· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without a hearing and in requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Davis v. Dunbar
  394 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims were properly denied because he failed to exhaust state remedies for new claims, the Escobedo rule did not apply retroactively, and he waived constitutional objections through counsel's actions and subsequent choices.
• Latimer v. Cranor
  205 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1953-06-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a change in circumstances after the district court's decision, specifically the state court granting habeas corpus, requires the appellate court to consider the case anew.
• O'Brien v. Lindsey
  204 F.2d 359· 1st Cir.· 1953-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies, and therefore the federal court should retain the appeal without disposition, allowing him to pursue relief in the state courts.
• Application of Baer
  169 F.2d 770· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust their state remedies by not seeking certiorari from the Supreme Court after the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals addressed the merits of their federal constitutional claims.
• Touchston v. McDERMOTT
  234 F.3d 1130· 11th Cir.· 2000-11-17 ·cited 6×
  Registered voters in Florida challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 102.166(4) governing manual ballot recounts during the 2000 presidential election recount, seeking an injunction to prevent manual recounts and certification of results containing recounts. The Ele
• Heck v. Humphrey
  997 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 6×
  A pro se prisoner's civil rights suit challenging his conviction must be dismissed, not stayed, if he fails to exhaust state remedies, even if the statute of limitations would bar refiling after exhaustion.
• Jones v. Murray
  976 F.2d 169· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Virginia's death penalty statute is constitutional and affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion and motion for a stay of execution.
• Workman v. Tate
  957 F.2d 1339· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's failure to assert non-exhaustion and the inordinate delay in state proceedings justified federal habeas review on the merits, and that counsel's failure to interview and call critical witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel for the
• Wise v. Fulcomer
  958 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should have addressed the Commonwealth's abuse of the writ argument before considering the petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Lowery v. McCAUGHTRY
  954 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 6×
  A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies, even if the petitioner speculates about potential state procedural hurdles.
• Clay v. Bronnenberg
  950 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 6×
  A federal court has jurisdiction under § 2254 to consider the constitutionality of an expired conviction if it was used to augment a current sentence.
• Herrera v. Harkins
  949 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×
  A prisoner may use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge parole procedures, but must use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.
• Tart v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  949 F.2d 490· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
• Jennison v. B.D. Goldsmith
  940 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 6×
  A petitioner must exhaust all available state remedies, including discretionary review by the state supreme court, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if the state supreme court has declared such review unnecessary for exhaustion purposes.
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Britz v. Thieret
  940 F.2d 226· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state trial court's failure to conduct individual voir dire to determine if prospective jurors were aware of the defendant's prior conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the Constitution does not mandate a presumption of prejudice in such cases
• McKINNON v. A.L. Lockhart
  921 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a procedural default in state court bars federal habeas review of claims unless the petitioner demonstrates both cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the state court's failure to address the claims.
• Jewell v. Cnty. OF Nassau
  917 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 6×
  A dismissal without prejudice to allow exhaustion of state remedies would time-bar a § 1983 claim if the statute of limitations has run, and a judicial stay, not dismissal, is the proper mechanism to avoid the limitations bar.
• O.P. Hollis v. J.O. Davis & The Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  912 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition due to prejudice caused by the petitioner's delay in filing.
• Coleman v. Saffle
  912 F.2d 1217· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the petitioner's claims regarding competency and fair trial were previously litigated and that newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant relief.
• O'Bremski v. Manfred Maass
  915 F.2d 418· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims were not colorable under federal law and that the Board's action in vacating an invalid release date was proper under Oregon law, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
• Clark v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  892 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
• Wilson v. Brown
  889 F.2d 1195· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 6×
  A suit against a state official in their official capacity for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred because state officials are not considered 'persons' under the statute. Injunctive relief was not timely sought.
• Chitwood v. Denis Dowd
  889 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Chitwood's claim presented special circumstances excusing the exhaustion of state remedies and that Missouri courts have the authority to order sentences to run concurrently with out-of-state sentences, creating a due process liberty interest. However, the unc
• Peoples v. Fulcomer
  882 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted because Pennsylvania courts might still entertain it, making the petition mixed and requiring the petitioner to elect which claims to proceed on.
• Johnson v. State OF Tex.
  878 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 6×
  An order holding a § 1983 civil rights suit in abeyance pending exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Lewis v. Borg
  879 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 6×
  A federal habeas claim is not barred by procedural default if the state court adjudicates the claim on the merits, even with a summary denial.
• White v. Lewis
  874 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A motion to dismiss is a proper pleading in a habeas corpus action, and a petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for any procedural default in state court to be entitled to federal habeas relief.
• Myron Mann v. Hendrian
  871 F.2d 51· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff lacks standing to sue a judge for injunctive relief regarding alleged constitutional violations in a past contempt proceeding if the likelihood of facing the same judge in a future, similar proceeding is speculative.
• Melvin v. Nickolopoulos
  864 F.2d 301· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim for damages for unlawful detention and denial of parole, even if related to a habeas corpus claim, should be treated as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and not dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Buffalo v. Sunn
  854 F.2d 1158· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in resolving a factual dispute regarding 'cause' for a procedural default based solely on conflicting affidavits, and therefore, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is required.
• Escalera v. Coombe
  852 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the attorney's failure to comply with the alibi notice statute was willful, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing under the standards set by Taylor v. Illinois.
• Giannini v. Comm. OF BAR Exam'rs OF the State BAR OF Cal.
  847 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an applicant must exhaust review by the California Supreme Court before filing a federal suit challenging the Committee of Bar Examiners' decision.
• Kramer v. Butler
  845 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.