Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

56 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Daye v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF NEW York & Eugene Le Fevre
  696 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 130×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if state remedies have not been exhausted, meaning the federal constitutional claim must have been presented to the state courts.
• Louie L. Wainwright v. Simpson
  360 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 98×
  The court affirmed the judgment but clarified that the exhaustion principle in habeas corpus is a matter of comity, not jurisdiction, and requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal intervention.
• Sullivan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  695 F.2d 1306· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 65×
  The concurring judge believes the majority misapplied Sykes by deciding the cause prong on the merits without a factual determination.
• DeBERRY v. Wolff
  513 F.2d 1336· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 60×
  A claim regarding a trial court's refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus unless it rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Allegations of knowing use of false testimony or suppression of evidence were not supported by
• United States ex rel. Joseph Marcial v. FAY
  247 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-16 ·cited 46×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing of fundamental unfairness or injustice, even if the defendant lacked counsel.
• In re Henry
  757 F.3d 1151· 11th Cir.· 2014-06-17 ·cited 43×
  John Ruthell Henry, a Florida death row inmate scheduled for execution, sought leave to file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida, which held that states cannot execute persons whose IQ test scores f
• Petition of Lloyd Clifton for a Writ of Habeas Corpus v. COX
  549 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision, arguing that the federal agent's actions were not authorized by federal law due to explicit Bureau regulations.
• Sylvander v. NEW England Home FOR Little Wanderers
  584 F.2d 1103· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the § 1983 claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody disputes.
• Johnson v. DYE
  175 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1949-05-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the State of Georgia, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore must be discharged from custody.
• Lopez v. United States
  186 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1950-12-22 ·cited 28×
• Spring v. Caldwell
  692 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 26×
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States ex rel. Clay Thomas v. State OF NEW Jersey
  472 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 24×
  The district court had the power to order a state prisoner's release pending appeal from a habeas corpus grant, but lacked authority to direct state courts to fix bail or accept recognizance.
• Bell v. Duckworth
  861 F.2d 169· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 23×
  Procedural errors committed during a state criminal trial are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief unless they rise to the level of constitutional error.
• United States ex rel. Joseph A. DI Rienzo v. State of N.J.
  423 F.2d 224· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition, and that the relator's contentions regarding denial of counsel for appeal and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• Harley W. Miller v. Gladden
  341 F.2d 972· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner's claims, even if successful, would not entitle him to immediate release from custody.
• Duvallon v. State
  691 F.2d 483· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  A petitioner convicted of a state offense punishable only by a fine is not 'in custody' for federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  640 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
• Crow v. United States
  323 F.2d 888· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum because no federal criminal proceeding was pending that required the appellant's presence, and the appellant had not demonstrated prejudice from any delay.
• Zellers v. Duckworth
  763 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
• Kravitz v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  546 F.2d 1100· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the declaratory judgment action was properly dismissed because the named defendants could not provide the requested relief.
• Potter v. Dowd
  146 F.2d 244· 7th Cir.· 1944-12-08 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts should not deny a hearing on habeas corpus petitions alleging denial of federal constitutional rights, even if state remedies exist but are practically unavailable or inadequate.
• McNAIR v. McCUNE
  527 F.2d 874· 4th Cir.· 1975-10-20 ·cited 11×
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction exists for a federal prisoner challenging segregated confinement imposed without due process.
• Doucette v. Vose
  842 F.2d 538· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The SJC's review of a claimed instructional error under state law, even if referencing federal constitutional issues, does not waive a procedural default for federal habeas review.
• United States ex rel. William J. Johnson v. Cavell
  468 F.2d 304· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief should be withheld pending a state court determination of whether the petitioner knowingly and deliberately waived his right to appeal.
• Winters v. Cook
  466 F.2d 1393· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-20 ·cited 9×
  A guilty plea does not waive the right to challenge jury composition if the defendant was unaware of that right.
• Nelson v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections
  610 F. Supp. 2d 1323· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that the habeas petition was timely filed and that the petitioner's claims regarding the exclusion of evidence, use of privileged communications, and introduction of bad acts evidence were either not cognizable, unexhausted, procedurally barred, or without merit. F
• Bailey v. Henslee
  264 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant waived his constitutional right to compulsory process by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
• Brewer v. Aiken
  935 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have recommended against the death penalty had they known of Brewer's limited intellect and passive personality.
• Harrison v. Dahm
  880 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of defense witness testimony and the refusal to give jury instructions on the "excited utterance" exception and lack of motive did not constitute constitutional error warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
• Collins v. Klinger
  332 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1964-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the introduction of evidence seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that state constitutional claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• In re Turner
  637 F.3d 1200· 11th Cir.· 2011-04-05 ·cited 4×
  William T. Turner, a Florida death row inmate convicted in 1985 of two murders, sought permission to file a successive federal habeas petition asserting that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The Eleventh Circuit held that al
• McKINNEY v. Parsons
  513 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Birmingham obscenity ordinance was constitutional, even though the ordinance was not authoritatively construed until after his conviction, because the ordinance as construed did not violate due process or First Amen
• 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.
• Hemon v. Off. OF Pub. Guardian
  878 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 2×
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state court guardianship disputes, as these matters fall under the traditional purview of state domestic relations law and implicate federalism and finality concerns.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  714 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the state judges for declaratory and injunctive relief never presented a case or controversy because the underlying dependency proceeding had concluded, rendering the claim moot.
• van Geldern v. Field
  498 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the habeas corpus petition based on the concurrent sentence doctrine, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice from the challenged conviction.
• McTYRE v. Pearson
  435 F.2d 333· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's federal petition without prejudice, finding it premature and that state courts should have the first opportunity to address the speedy trial issue.
• Bassett v. Tahash
  315 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1963-04-12 ·cited 2×
  A prisoner's erroneous sentencing to a state prison instead of a reformatory, when no substantial differences in conditions or consequences exist between the institutions, does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment violation cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Cooper v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-14
  The court held that a petitioner must be in custody under the challenged state court judgment at the time the petition is filed to establish federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.
• Sneed v. Donahue
  993 F.2d 1239· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-24
  Automatic revocation of parole under Kentucky law upon incarceration for a new crime does not violate the Due Process Clause when the statute mandates revocation and the parole authority has no discretion.
• Claudio v. Scully
  982 F.2d 798· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28
  The court held that the failure of appellate counsel to raise a meritorious state constitutional claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Bernard v. Garraghty
  934 F.2d 52· 4th Cir.· 1991-05-28
  A prisoner serving consecutive sentences is considered 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus challenge against any of those sentences, even if the sentence for the challenged conviction has technically expired.
• Grice v. Mattox
  797 F.2d 686· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-31
  The court held that it lacks federal habeas corpus jurisdiction because the petitioner has been released from custody and the district court has no jurisdiction over his current custodian.
• Shabarekh v. City OF Miami
  443 F.2d 992· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the City of Miami relief from a habeas corpus judgment without justification.
• Williams v. Oriscello
  441 F.2d 1113· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-12
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies by filing a habeas corpus petition before his direct appeal was decided.
• Adargo v. Patterson
  371 F.2d 822· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-13
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because the Colorado Supreme Court had not yet finally determined his writ of error concerning his original conviction.
• Thomas v. The Sheriff OF Jackson Cnty.
  346 F.2d 997· 6th Cir.· 1965-06-11
  The court held that the appellant must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if he believes state courts offer no justice.