Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Reese v. Harley O. Teets
  248 F.2d 147· 9th Cir.· 1957-09-17 ·cited 3×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus or stay of execution because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies.
• Clay Sims v. Alvis
  242 F.2d 506· 6th Cir.· 1957-03-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition should be transferred to the district court for a determination of whether state remedies have been exhausted.
• Commonwealth of Pa. Ex rel. Billman v. Burke
  170 F.2d 413· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-30 ·cited 3×
• Dustin v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that pretrial habeas corpus petitions are subject to abstention doctrines and require exhaustion of state remedies, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Branch v. McDonough
  779 F. Supp. 2d 1309· N.D. Fla.· 2010-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors were without merit, as the trial was fair and the evidence overwhelming.
• Griffin v. McNeil
  667 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was not time-barred under the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations due to continuous tolling during state post-conviction proceedings.
• Cassidy v. McNeil
  621 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claim regarding the pocketknife as a deadly weapon was not contrary to federal law and was based on a reasonable determination of the facts.
• Neumont v. Monroe Cnty.
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, denying summary judgment on some counts, dismissing others as unripe or discretionary, and allowing certain claims to proceed.
• Garrett Foster v. State
  764 So. 2d 919· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-08-16 ·cited 2×
• Silverburg v. Evitts
  993 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies by not presenting his claims to the Kentucky Supreme Court, and his claims were procedurally barred under state law.
• Enoch McQueen v. Whitley
  989 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petition challenging a prior conviction used to enhance a current sentence constitutes an abuse of the writ if the claim could have been raised in a prior petition challenging the enhanced sentence.
• Laville Hannon v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  981 F.2d 1142· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel's failure to file a timely appeal constituted ineffective assistance and that the state waived arguments regarding exhaustion and abuse of the writ.
• L.C. Markham v. Dick Clark
  978 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 2×
  A state prisoner must exhaust available state administrative remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, and failure to do so, even through forfeiture, bars federal review.
• Self v. Collins
  973 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding state court findings of fact and making its own credibility determinations, and that the confession was not obtained contrary to the Constitution.
• McINTYRE v. Trickey
  975 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The Eighth Circuit held that prosecuting McIntyre for stealing a car after he had already been prosecuted for tampering with the same car violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the conduct constituting the tampering offense was used to prove essential elements of the stealing ch
• Shaw v. Delo
  971 F.2d 181· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for not raising claims in his first federal habeas petition and did not establish actual innocence, thus the second petition was properly dismissed.
• Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Cooper
  967 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
• Wilson v. Armontrout
  962 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Palmer v. Clarke
  961 F.2d 771· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a double jeopardy challenge to a second conviction based on sufficiency of admissible evidence is affirmed, but a challenge to a third trial based on prosecutorial misconduct in admitting evidence requires further consideration.
• Lane v. Richards
  957 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if any claim within it is unexhausted in state court, even if other claims are exhausted.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• Cornell v. Crispus NIX
  953 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred and that the newly discovered evidence of witness recantation was material and likely to produce an acquittal, warranting a conditional grant of habeas corpus.
• Wise v. Armontrout
  952 F.2d 221· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas petitioner is procedurally barred from raising claims if they failed to meet state procedural requirements, unless they show cause and prejudice, and there is no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings to establish cause.
• William D. Allen, D.D.S. v. La. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  948 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lift a previously imposed stay, even though the appellant had achieved partial success in state court, because the circumstances justifying abstention had not changed significantly.
• Heiser v. Ryan
  951 F.2d 559· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his habeas petition alleging his guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel's threat to withdraw, and that extreme delays in state court adjudication may violate due process.
• Claudie Wallace v. Cody
  951 F.2d 1170· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking a speedier release due to improper calculation of earned credits need not exhaust state remedies if such remedies would be futile.
• Couch v. Jabe
  951 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to determine if the presumption of procedural default under Ylst v. Nunnemaker is rebutted, and to allow consolidation of all claims.
• Cain v. Redman
  947 F.2d 817· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner could not retroactively apply the Supreme Court's decision in Sandstrom v. Montana to his conviction because it announced a new rule of law that does not fall within the Teague v. Lane exceptions, and any error in the jury instructions was harml
• Coy Arthur Hill v. Reynolds
  942 F.2d 1494· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's significant delay in adjudicating the petitioner's direct criminal appeal violates his due process rights and excuses him from the requirement to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• Sanford Norman Harris v. DeROBERTIS
  932 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 2×
  A habeas claim should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies if a post-conviction petition would be untimely under Illinois law, unless Illinois precedent indicates the petitioner could demonstrate a lack of culpable negligence.
• Simpson v. Camper
  927 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal would be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals on whether a state remedy is available to the petitioner.
• Parette v. A.L. Lockhart
  927 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while a district court in the district of confinement has habeas jurisdiction over an attack on another state's detainer, the petition was properly dismissed without prejudice because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies in Louisiana.
• Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF the State OF Or. & the State of Or.
  920 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that federal district courts have jurisdiction over railroad tax valuation claims under 49 U.S.C. § 11503 and should not abstain from hearing them, especially after the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern.
• Pesina v. Johnson
  913 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety, and a petitioner must seek leave to appeal to the highest state court to exhaust remedies.
• Manning v. Alexander
  912 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that Manning adequately presented his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim to the Supreme Court of Ohio, thus exhausting his state remedies.
• Munz v. Crispus C. NIX
  908 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the stay and allow the district court to consider remaining issues after state exhaustion.
• Hafley v. Sowders
  902 F.2d 480· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that one claim was exhausted and meritorious, while the remaining six ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unexhausted. The court affirmed dismissal of unexhausted claims and dismissal of the exhausted claim on its merits.
• Radislaw Blazic v. Henderson
  900 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while New York law likely warranted a justification charge based on the evidence of an accidental shooting during a struggle, the omission of such a charge did not violate due process because it would not have affected the jury's verdict.
• Brown v. Armontrout
  898 F.2d 84· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims lacked merit, affirming the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Lindsey v. Wells
  901 F.2d 96· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claim attacking the fact or length of confinement requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal court intervention.
• Whittlesey v. Cir. Court FOR Baltimore Cnty.
  897 F.2d 143· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner who escapes from state prison and commits crimes in another state, thereby preventing the state courts from having a full and fair opportunity to consider his claims, has not exhausted state remedies.
• McCartney v. Vitek
  902 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court may dismiss a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, even before the state has responded, if the state indicates it will not waive the exhaustion requirement.
• Russell v. Lane
  890 F.2d 947· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 2×
  A judge's recusal does not automatically invalidate prior rulings, but a party may seek to vacate those rulings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) if the recusal ground existed at the time of the rulings.
• Weaver v. Foltz
  888 F.2d 1097· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing a mixed habeas corpus petition without considering Granberry v. Greer, which allows consideration of exhausted issues in such petitions.
• Anderson v. Butler
  886 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 2×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to habeas corpus petitions, but sanctions should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, considering the prisoner's pro se status and the writ's unique nature.
• Shoultes v. Laidlaw
  886 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, and that local legislators, city attorneys, and judges are shielded by absolute immunity for actions taken within their official capacities.
• Satterwhite v. Lynaugh
  886 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because his claims were not fairly presented to the state courts.
• Thomas v. Ga. State Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles
  881 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 2×
  A prisoner's equal protection challenge to parole procedures, alleging racial and economic discrimination, can be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without exhausting state remedies, but claims seeking release or damages for parole denial must be brought as habeas corpus petitions r
• Campas v. Zimmerman
  876 F.2d 318· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition solely on the grounds of delay without fully addressing exhaustion and prejudice issues, especially with an augmented record.