Brown v. Maass, 92-36906
| Decision Date | 10 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-36906,92-36906 |
| Citation | 11 F.3d 914 |
| Parties | Kenneth William BROWN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Christopher J. Schatz, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for petitioner-appellant.
Ann Kelley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, OR, and David Lynn Larsen, Dept. of Justice Admin., Salem, OR, for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before: REINHARDT, BRUNETTI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth William Brown, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Brown's petition because he had procedurally defaulted on his state court remedies by failing to present his federal claims to the Oregon Supreme Court for review. We reverse.
Brown filed his federal habeas petition on January 24, 1990. As of that date, he had not exhausted his state remedies. He could have filed a timely petition for review of his federal claims on January 24, and he could have requested an extension of time to file his petition for review at any time before the Oregon Court of Appeals Judgment against him became final on March 14, 1990. Since Brown had available state court remedies at the time he filed his federal habeas petition, the proper ground for dismissing the petition was failure to exhaust, not procedural default. See Matias v. Oshiro, 683 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir.1982). The state, however, did not raise the failure to exhaust defense in the district court.
We have held that a state waives a procedural default when it fails to raise it in federal court and instead relies erroneously on a claim of failure to exhaust state remedies. Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir.1990). We see no reason to treat the reverse situation differently. By failing to raise it in the district court, Oregon waived its failure to exhaust defense to Brown's federal habeas petition. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134, 107 S.Ct. 1671, 1675, 95 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). The state has shown no exceptional circumstance that prevented it from raising that defense. Nor do we see how the interests of comity and federalism would be better served by requiring that the Oregon Supreme Court now be asked to address the merits of Brown's claim before it is heard in a federal court. Id.; see also Snyder v. Summer, 960 F.2d 1448, 1454 n. 3 (9th Cir.1992). Since the district court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Windham v. Merkle
...like Windham, are often held to their waivers; the State should be held to its. We have often done so in the past. See Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 914 (9th Cir.1993); Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir.1990); Grooms v. Keeney, 826 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.1987); Batchelor v. Cupp, ......
-
Horton v. Suthers
...the argument that a petitioner has failed to exhaust his remedies. Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134, 107 S.Ct. 1671; see also Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 914-15 (9th Cir.1993). Further, at least one state supreme court has held that exhaustion of remedies in the habeas corpus context is not juri......
-
Ashmus v. Calderon
...if the state were willing to waive the failure to exhaust defense, the Court could proceed on the unexhausted claim. Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 914 (9th Cir.1993); Thompson v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1495, 1508 (11th Cir.1983) ("We hold that a district court in its discretion may accept the ......
-
Rollins v. Superior Court Of Los Angeles
...for a hearing in the district court or court of appeals.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1993)). A petition containing solely unexhausted claims is subject to immediate See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.20......
-
Review Proceedings
...waived because state “affirmatively waived exhaustion” by asserting that defendant had no unexhausted claims); Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 914 (9th Cir. 1993) (exhaustion requirement waived because state did not raise claim in district court); McCormick v. Parker, 821 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10t......