White v. Meachum, 86-2731
| Citation | 838 F.2d 1137 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2731,86-2731 |
| Parties | Riley Bradford WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry MEACHUM; Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Riley Bradford White, pro se.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, and Michael W. Elliott, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents-appellees.
Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Riley Bradford White, a prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections appearing pro se, appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 case. He alleges that the Department of Corrections' method of computing his good time credits violates the ex post facto clause, Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution. The district court construed the complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed it for failing to exhaust state remedies. We affirm for the reasons stated below. 1
White began by pursuing informal methods to correct the Department of Corrections' allegedly unconstitutional good time credit policy. After writing several letters which failed to resolve the problem, he filed an action in the district court for the County of Pittsburg, Oklahoma asserting that the Department of Corrections' policy for calculating his good time credit violates the Constitution's ex post facto clause as interpreted in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Although the state filed an elaborate brief on the merits, the state court dismissed the claim without opinion. White failed to timely appeal pursuant to Okla.Stat. tit. 22, Sec. 1087 (1981).
White next attempted to obtain relief by filing an action in federal court asserting the identical claim denied by the state habeas court. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies at least in part because the petition failed to indicate that the state habeas court had issued a final ruling. On appeal, the state argues that although the petitioner's state case was in fact dismissed, dismissal of the federal claim is nonetheless appropriate on exhaustion grounds because of petitioner's failure to appeal.
In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner is ordinarily required to show either that a state appellate court has had an opportunity to rule on the same claim presented in federal court, Smith v. Atkins, 678 F.2d 883, 884-85 (10th Cir.1982) (per curiam), or that at the time he filed his federal petition he had no available state avenue of redress, see Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 8, 103 S.Ct. 276, 278, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) (per curiam). The rationale for this requirement is that state courts will enforce the federal constitution as fully and fairly as a federal court. See Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3-4, 102 S.Ct. 18, 19-20, 70 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (per curiam). Absent some reason to believe otherwise, we must assume that if given the chance, Oklahoma's courts will provide White with the same careful consideration he would receive before us. Id.
White's time for appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has run. Under Oklahoma law, however, that court may nevertheless have jurisdiction to address the merits of White's federal constitutional claim. In cases involving failure to file direct appeals, Okla.Stat. tit. 22, Sec. 1086 (1981) has been interpreted by the Oklahoma courts to permit the Court of Criminal Appeals to hear time barred appeals if the petitioner follows certain procedures. Webb v. State, 661 P.2d 904, 905 (Okla.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 959, 103 S.Ct. 2434, 77 L.Ed.2d 1319 (1983); Smith v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miranda v. Cooper
...as a federal court. See Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3-4, 102 S.Ct. 18, 19, 70 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (per curiam); White v. Meachum, 838 F.2d 1137 (10th Cir.1988). Picard requires that a federal constitutional claim must be clearly presented to the state ... To be sure, respondent presented......
-
Osborn v. Shillinger
...Cir.1982). To fulfill the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must present his claim to a state appellate court. White v. Meachum, 838 F.2d 1137, 1138 (10th Cir.1988). If Osborn presented the substance of his claims to the Wyoming Supreme Court on direct appeal, the availability of a post-......
-
Walker v. Ward
...of his conviction in state court. See Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 204, 70 S.Ct. 587, 590, 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950); White v. Meachum, 838 F.2d 1137, 1138 (10th Cir.1988). Requiring exhaustion "serves to minimize friction between our federal and state systems of justice by allowing the State a......
-
Hawkins v. Champion
...deficient as to render futile any effort to obtain relief." Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam); White v. Meachum, 838 F.2d 1137, 1138 (10th Cir.1988). The exhaustion rule, for instance, "does not apply if the petitioner ... would now find the claims procedurally barred.......