MATTER OF OSBORN
| Decision Date | 03 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 18041-18043 and 18174.,18041-18043 and 18174. |
| Citation | 434 F.2d 650 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Kenneth L. Osborn, Kenneth L. OSBORN, Appellant. Kenneth L. OSBORN, Appellant, v. Harry E. RUSSELL. UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Kenneth L. OSBORN, Appellant, v. Harry E. RUSSELL. Kenneth L. OSBORN, C-3638, Appellant, v. Harry E. RUSSELL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Kenneth L. Osborn, in pro. per.
David P. Truax, Asst. Dist. Atty., Meadville, Pa., for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
Relator Osborn has filed four petitions for Habeas Corpus in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Chief Judge Wallace Gourley1 reviewed the papers filed by Osborn and because these papers did not indicate that Osborn had pursued remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the District Court denied the petitions on the ground Osborn had failed to exhaust state remedies.
However, it appears from the documents filed by Osborn in Civil Action No. 69-14 and from statements contained in the Commonwealth's brief to this Court that Osborn exhausted his state remedies on direct appeal and that the Pennsylvania courts indeed rejected on his direct appeal the same constitutional contentions Osborn now raises in the federal courts. It is well settled that no more is required of Osborn by the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1963); United States ex rel. Fletcher v. Maroney, 413 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Howard v. Russell, 405 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the dismissal of the habeas corpus petitions will be reversed and the case remanded in order that the district court may verify that Osborn has exhausted the remedies provided by Pennsylvania, and thereafter determine the merits of Osborn's claims.
1 Since the entry of the order in question, Chief Judge Gourley has assumed Senior Judge status.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. Astrue
... ... 10 and 11). Thereafter, the parties filed their briefs in support of judgment on the pleadings. (ECF Nos. 14 and 17). Therefore, this matter is ripe for resolution. II. Claimant's Background Claimant was 44 years old at the time of his alleged disability onset. (Tr. at 39, 42). He ... ...
-
Application of Santos
...for federal habeas corpus purposes. United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierly, 449 F.2d 1286, 1287 (3d Cir. 1971); Osborn v. Russell, 434 F.2d 650, 651 (3d Cir. 1970). The Supreme Court made it clear in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 447, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), that the exhaustion......
-
U.S. ex rel. Geisler v. Walters
...447, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286, 1287 (3d Cir. 1971); Osborn v. Russell, 434 F.2d 650, 651 (3d Cir. 1970).11 A denial of allocatur, as here, or a similar refusal to entertain an appeal constitutes a sufficient presentation for......
- United States ex rel. Riley v. State of New Jersey