|
|
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)
Rose v. Lundy No. 80-846 Argued October 14, 1981 Decided March 3, 1982 455 U.S. 509
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c) provide that a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court based on an alleged federal constitutional violation will not be granted unless the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. After respondent was convicted of certain charges in a Tennessee state court and his convictions were affirmed, he unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in a state court. He then filed a petition in Federal District Court for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254, alleging four specified grounds of relief. The District Court granted the writ, notwithstanding the petition included both claims that had not been exhausted in the state courts and those that had been. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.
624 F.2d 1100, reversed and remanded.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, and IV, concluding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. A rule requiring exhaustion of all claims in state courts promotes comity and furthers the purposes underlying the exhaustion doctrine, as codified in §§ 2254(b) and (c), of protecting the state courts’ role in the enforcement of federal law and preventing disruption of state judicial proceedings. Pp. 513-520.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluded in Part III-C that the total exhaustion rule will not impair the state prisoner’s interest in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims, since, rather than returning to state court to exhaust all of his claims, he can always amend the petition to delete the unexhausted claims, although, by doing so, he would risk dismissal of subsequent federal petitions. Pp. 520-521.
O’CONNOR, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, and IV, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III-C, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 522. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 532. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 538. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 538.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) in 455 U.S. 509 455 U.S. 510. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TI7HY42YLWH4MRA.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), in 455 U.S. 509, page 455 U.S. 510. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TI7HY42YLWH4MRA.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). cited in 1982, 455 U.S. 509, pp.455 U.S. 510. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TI7HY42YLWH4MRA.
|