Rhines v. Weber, 02-2990.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-2990.,02-2990. |
| Citation | 346 F.3d 799 |
| Parties | Charles Russell RHINES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
Craig M. Eichstadt, Pierre, SD (Mark Barnett, on the brief), for appellee.
Roberto A. Lange, Sioux Falls, SD (John A. Schlimgen, on the brief), for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
South Dakota inmate Charles Russell Rhines filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that numerous constitutional errors infected his 1993 first-degree murder conviction. The district court entered an order declaring that Rhines failed to exhaust some federal claims and that non-futile state court remedies may still be available to him. The court stayed all claims pending exhaustion of state court remedies for the unexhausted claims. Warden Douglas Weber appeals. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review an interlocutory order holding a habeas petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies. Carmichael v. White, 163 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.1998).
This court has recently addressed the question whether habeas claims may be stayed while the habeas petitioner seeks state court remedies on claims that may be unexhausted. Akins v. Kenney, 341 F.3d 681, 686-87 (8th Cir.2003). Akins precludes the district court from staying Rhines's exhausted claims while he seeks state post-conviction relief on other claims that may be unexhausted. However, Akins did not decide whether a petitioner may delete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slutzker v. Johnson
...thus, the validity of the other Circuits' willingness to do so-is currently under review by the Supreme Court. See Rhines v. Weber, 346 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.2003), cert. granted,___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2905, 159 L.Ed.2d 811 (2004); cf. Pliler v. Ford, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446, 159 L.......
-
Kell v. Benzon
...jurisdiction is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Rhines to reach the merits. This contention is based on two steps: 1. Rhines v. Weber was appealed to the Eighth Circuit as a collateral order. See Rhines v. Weber , 346 F.3d 799, 800 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).2. If the Eighth ......
-
Rhines v. Young
...for review of his perfected petition." Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 271-72, 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), rev'g 346 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2003). We then remanded to the district court for further consideration under the Supreme Court's new standards. Rhines v. Weber, 409 F.3d ......
-
Rhines v. Weber
...case so this court could determine whether Rhines could proceed by dismissing the unexhausted claims from his petition. Rhines v. Weber, 346 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.2003). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a district court may issue an order of stay and abeya......