Curtis v. Boeger
| Decision Date | 06 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 17599-17601.,17599-17601. |
| Citation | 331 F.2d 675 |
| Parties | Robert B. CURTIS, William L. Clay, Lucien Richards, Rev. Charles Perkins and Norman Seay, Appellants, v. William BOEGER, Warden of St. Louis City Jail. Louis FORD, Ian Grand, Benjamin Goins, Roberta Tournour, Taylor Jones, Kenneth Lee and Ronald Glenn, Appellants, v. William BOEGER, Warden of St. Louis City Jail. Michela GRAND, Daniel Pollock and James Peake, Jr., Appellants, v. William BOEGER, Warden of St. Louis City Jail. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Joseph S. McDuffie, St. Louis, Mo., made argument for appellants and Robert E. Wilson, Jr., R. L. Witherspoon, Clyde S. Cahill, Jr., Charles R. Oldham, Wyvetter H. Younge, Emanuel Williams, Margaret B. Wilson, Robert Ratermann, St. Louis, Mo., and Billy Jones, East St. Louis, Ill., were with him on the brief.
Eugene P. Freeman, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis Mo., made argument for appellee; Thos. J. Neenan, City Counselor St. Louis, Mo., and Conway B. Briscoe, Jr., Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief.
Wayne L. Millsap, St. Louis, Mo., made argument and filed brief Amicus Curiae and John P. Montrey, St. Louis, Mo., was with him on the brief.
Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
These appeals were taken from the orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denying appellants' petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that appellants had failed to exhaust all remedies available to them in the Courts of the State of Missouri. In re Curtis' Petition, D.C., 227 F.Supp. 438.
The issue is narrowly confined to ascertaining whether it was necessary for appellants to apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari from the order of the Supreme Court of Missouri denying them relief, before they were entitled to a hearing in the United States District Court upon the merits of their claims.
The issue has been duly considered on the record before us, and on the briefs and oral arguments of appellants, appellee and amicus curiae.
In his brief, appellee acknowledges that "Fay v. Noia expressly obliterated the past procedural requirement of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court before consideration of habeas relief in the District Court" and suggests that this Court "remand these cases to the District Court for further proceedings in consonance with the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxwell v. Stephens
...a failure to exhaust available state remedies. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435-438, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Curtis v. Boeger, 331 F.2d 675 (8 Cir. 1964). 3 Bailey v. Henslee, 287 F.2d 936, 939 (8 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 877, 82 S.Ct. 121, 7 L.Ed.2d 78; Henslee v. Stewar......
-
Maxwell v. Bishop
...a failure to exhaust available state remedies. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435-438, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Curtis v. Boeger, 331 F.2d 675 (8 Cir. 1964). 4 The study is said to be the same one with which the Fourth Circuit was concerned in Moorer v. State of South Carolina, 368 F......
-
Ford v. Boeger
...by reason of their failure to apply to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. Upon appeal, we reversed and remanded. Curtis v. Boeger, 8 Cir., 331 F.2d 675, "The Court determines that appellants were not, as a prerequisite to a hearing upon the merits of their application, required......
-
United States v. Nenna
...of that procedure may bar federal habeas. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435-438, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Curtis v. Boeger, 331 F.2d 675 (8th Cir. 1964); Hedberg v. Pitchess, 362 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1966). II. On the merits, while petitioners' claim is both substantial and intere......