O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
- Decided
- June 7, 1999
- Docket
- 97-2048
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,799 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (2 of 2 verified; none is a verified overruling) · In re: Abdur'Rahman v.
What later courts said
- holding that a state prisoner must exhaust discre- tionary state post-conviction remedies be- fore seeking federal habeas relief — Jesus Nino v. George Galaza, Warden Attorney General of the State of California (1999)
- holding that petitioners must invoke one complete round of a state’s established appellate review process — Timothy Cossel v. Charles Miller (2000)
- holding that the procedural default doctrine preserves the integrity of the exhaustion doctrine, which "a prisoner could evade... by `letting the time run' on state remedies" — Michael Hicks v. Dennis M. Straub, Warden (2004)
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.
Federal habeas relief is available to state prisoners only after they have exhausted their claims in state court. 28 U.S. C. §§ 2254(b)(1), (c) (1994 ed. and Supp. III). In this case, we are asked to decide whether a state prisoner must present his claims to a state supreme court in a petition for [*840] discretionary review in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement We conclude that he must.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999)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.