Rust v. Clarke, 91-2453

Decision Date26 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-2453,91-2453
Citation960 F.2d 72
PartiesJohn E. RUST, Appellee, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Warden, Nebraska State Penitentiary, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

J. Kirk Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb., argued, for appellant.

Emil M. Fabian, Omaha, Neb., argued (Barbara Thielen, on brief), for appellee.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a capital case. John Rust was sentenced to death by a panel of Nebraska state judges on October 30, 1975. The conviction was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court on February 2, 1977. Because the defendant filed and appealed two motions for post-conviction relief, this matter remained in the state court until 1986. On June 9, 1987, Rust filed a habeas petition in the federal district court. He filed an amended petition on July 6, 1988. The case was assigned to the docket of Judge Warren Urbom and referred for recommendation to Magistrate David Piester. On May 26, 1989, the case was transferred to Judge William Cambridge and assigned to Magistrate Richard Kopf. On February 14, 1990, the magistrate issued a recommendation that Rust's sentence be reduced to life imprisonment, unless the State of Nebraska initiated capital resentencing proceedings within sixty days after the judgment became final. Magistrate Kopf found that the state trial court erred by failing to apply the reasonable doubt standard in finding aggravating circumstances. On this basis, without passing on any other claim alleging error in the conviction and sentencing proceeding, the magistrate issued his findings and recommendations. Judge Cambridge adopted the magistrate's findings on May 13, 1991. This appeal followed.

Habeas corpus is a civil action. Our jurisdiction turns on the finality of the judgment below. Serious jurisdictional questions arise from the district court's order. According to the parties, several claims relating to both the sentence and the conviction remain undecided. Resentencing (from death to life) does not obviate legal claims raised challenging the conviction. The district court's order stating that habeas relief will be granted unless the state grants a new sentencing hearing within sixty days would appear to also lack finality due to the pendency of undecided claims. To obviate any misunderstanding, we stay that order until further direction of this court.

Rather than dismiss the entire action, however, for reasons now set forth, we now remand the case to the district court to pass on the remaining claims within ninety days of this order. Either party may thereafter file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's subsequent order. The parties may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Reeves v. Hopkins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • December 16, 1994
    ...of appeals has been concerned when this court failed to address all the issues in death penalty cases at the same time. Rust v. Clarke, 960 F.2d 72, 73-74 (8th Cir.1992). But compare Rust v. Hopkins, 984 F.2d 1486, 1495-96 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2950, 124 L.Ed.2d ......
  • State v. Rust
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1995
    ...appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause for consideration of the remaining issues. Rust v. Clarke, 960 F.2d 72 (8th Cir.1992). The federal district court then entered an additional order granting habeas relief on Rust's claim of ineffective assistance of ......
  • Parker, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 12, 1995
    ...row, but also the state, whose interests in finality deserve the concern and deference of the federal courts." Rust v. Clarke, 960 F.2d 72, 73 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Similarly the public "has a vital interest in the fair and prompt conclusion of habeas corpus petitions in federal cour......
  • Reeves v. Hopkins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 8, 1996
    ...all the issues in a case at one time, rather than have a protracted, issue by issue, series of remands, see generally Rust v. Clarke, 960 F.2d 72, 73-74 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 967, 113 S.Ct. 2950, 124 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993), 9 we return this case with instructions to consider an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT