|
|
|
| Exhaustion |
|
Baldwin v. Reese,
No. 02-964 (U.S., March 2, 2004): In habeas case, exhaustion of state remedies requires a Petitioner to "fairly present" his claims. "Fair presentation" is not manifested when a court must look beyond a petition, a brief, or other moving papers to find material that would alert it to the presence of such a claim.
|
|
|
Dye v. Hofbauer,
No. 04-8384 (U.S., October 11, 2005) (per curiam): Federal habeas case correcting a recalcitrant panel of the Sixth Circuit on a procedural ground, this time in favor of the Petitioner. The panel held that Dye did not present his federal claims to the state courts and the state court opinion did not address federal claims (only claims under state law). The Court re-affirmed that the question is whether the Petitioner fairly presented the claim to the state court, not whether the State court actually addressed the merits since, as happened in this case and sometimes happens here in Oklahoma, the Petitioner may raise a claim under federal law in his Brief, but the state court may not address specifically the claim in terms of federal law. It is the presentation of the federal claim that satisfies the exhaustion requirement.
|
|
|
A court may hold a petition in abeyance pending exhaustion:
Fetterley v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1993) (District Court abused discretion by refusing to hold federal proceedings in abeyance while petitioner litigated unexhausted claims in state court).
Scott v. Dugger, 891 F.2d 800, 802 (11th Cir. 1989) (District Court stayed execution and federal habeas corpus proceedings pending exhaustion of state remedies).
Neuschafer v. Whitley, 860 F.2d 1470, 1476 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1988) (petitioner could have presented mixed petition then asked the district court to hold it in abeyance).
The abeyance procedure has been utilized in capital habeas corpus cases in the Western District of Oklahoma, both before and after the enactment of the AEDPA: See Spears v. State, Case No. CIV-96-1862-L; Cooks v. Ward, Case No. CIV-87-1538-L; Stafford v. Maynard, Case No. CIV-87-678-T; and Jones v. Ward, Case No. CIV-85-2789-T.
|
|
|
|
