Rose v. Lundy
- Decided
- March 8, 1982
- Docket
- 80-846
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,808 timesAbrogated (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · Agofsky v. Jones
What later courts said
- holding that a federal district court must dismiss a state habeas petitioner's writ containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims — Theodore J. Lyons v. Clarice Stovall (1999)
- holding that a federal habeas court ordinarily should not adjudicate a “mixed” petition, i.e., one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims — Charles C. Delaney III v. James Matesanz (2001)
- holding that district court should dismiss, without prejudice, habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims — In Re Gasery (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-C.
In this case we consider whether the exhaustion rule in 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254(b), (c) requires a federal district court to dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus containing any claims that have not been exhausted in the state courts. Because a rule requiring exhaustion of all claims furthers the purposes underlying the habeas statute, we hold that a district court must dismiss such “mixed petitions,” leaving the prisoner with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court.
HH Following a jury trial, respondent Noah Lundy was convicted on charges of rape and crime against nature, and sentenced to the Tennessee State Penitentiary.[1] After the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review, the respondent filed an unsuccessful petition for postconviction relief in the Knox County Criminal Court.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.