Rhines v. Weber
- Decided
- March 30, 2005
- Docket
- 03-9046
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,877 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that even where a stay was inappropriate, at a minimum the district court should allow a petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims only — Jennifer Henderson v. Deborah K. Johnson, Warden (2013)
- holding that district court has discretion to determine how to proceed with a mixed habeas petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims — Sines v. Caley (2014)
- recognizing that AEDPA did not deprive district courts 4 of its authority to stay cases — Maxwell v. Shoop (2022)
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.
We confront here the problem of a “mixed” petition for habeas corpus relief in which a state prisoner presents a federal court with a single petition containing some claims that have been exhausted in the state courts and some that have not. More precisely, we consider whether a federal district court has discretion to stay the mixed petition to allow the petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state [*272] court in the first instance, and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)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.