United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 18890.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT and GIBBONS, Circuit |
| Citation | 449 F.2d 1286 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. Regis Charles SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. Joseph BRIERLEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Docket Number | No. 18890.,18890. |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1971 |
449 F.2d 1286 (1971)
UNITED STATES ex rel. Regis Charles SCHULTZ, Appellant,
v.
Joseph BRIERLEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
No. 18890.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted September 20, 1971.
Decided October 18, 1971.
Regis C. Schultz, pro se.
W. Thomas Malcolm, Dist. Atty., Indiana, Pa., for appellee.
Before VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial in the district court of a habeas corpus petition.
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 1970, upon consideration of application of above-named applicant for habeas corpus, and it appearing that applicant has failed to exhaust his State remedies.
It is ORDERED that the said application be and it hereby is denied.
This cryptic order makes no reference to the contentions set forth in the petition for habeas corpus or to the state remedies to which the district court refers in its order. Appellant petitioned for reconsideration or in the alternative for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1970). In an equally cryptic order the district court denied the petition for reconsideration but granted the certificate of probable cause.
We have examined the petition for habeas corpus and compared it with the briefs filed by appellant and on his behalf in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It is clear that the same contentions which are advanced to the district court in the petition for habeas corpus were raised on direct appeal in the Pennsylvania courts and rejected. Indeed the appellee does not contend otherwise. Rather, the Commonwealth's sole contention is that the availability of a remedy under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 1965, Jan. 25, P.L. 1580 § 2, 19 P.S. 1180-2 (Purdon's Supp. 1971) brings into operation the rule requiring exhaustion of available state remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). In view of the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braunskill v. Hilton, Civ. A. No. 85-2008.
...41-42 (3d Cir.1984); United States ex rel Hickey v. Jeffes, 571 F.2d 762, 764 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir.1971); Morrison v. Kimmelman, 579 F.Supp. 796, 801 The state also contends that the claims petitioner now raises, were not "fairl......
-
Ross v. Fulcomer, Civ. A. No. 84-5774.
...PCHA. Swanger v. Zimmerman, 750 F.2d at 295; Codispoti v. Howard, 589 F.2d 135 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d In the present case, the Magistrate reasoned that although all of Ross' grounds for relief in this habeas petition had been presented to......
-
Choice v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Parole, Civ. No. 76-779.
...L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Geisler v. Walters, 510 F.2d 887, 892 (3d Cir. 1975); United States ex el. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Turner v. Rundle, 438 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1971). In this case, petitioner has not presented his claim to ......
-
Swanger v. Zimmerman, No. 84-5090
...97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Hickey v. Jeffes, 571 F.2d 762, 764 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286, 1287 (3d Cir.1971). Thus, the magistrate was correct in concluding that seven of petitioner's nine claims, which had been considered and re......
-
Braunskill v. Hilton, Civ. A. No. 85-2008.
...41-42 (3d Cir.1984); United States ex rel Hickey v. Jeffes, 571 F.2d 762, 764 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir.1971); Morrison v. Kimmelman, 579 F.Supp. 796, 801 The state also contends that the claims petitioner now raises, were not "fairl......
-
Ross v. Fulcomer, Civ. A. No. 84-5774.
...PCHA. Swanger v. Zimmerman, 750 F.2d at 295; Codispoti v. Howard, 589 F.2d 135 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d In the present case, the Magistrate reasoned that although all of Ross' grounds for relief in this habeas petition had been presented to......
-
Choice v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Parole, Civ. No. 76-779.
...L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Geisler v. Walters, 510 F.2d 887, 892 (3d Cir. 1975); United States ex el. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Turner v. Rundle, 438 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1971). In this case, petitioner has not presented his claim to ......
-
Swanger v. Zimmerman, No. 84-5090
...97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Hickey v. Jeffes, 571 F.2d 762, 764 (3d Cir.1978); United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286, 1287 (3d Cir.1971). Thus, the magistrate was correct in concluding that seven of petitioner's nine claims, which had been considered and re......