Rhines v. Weber

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusExhaustionAEDPAmixed petitionhabeas corpusAEDPAexhaustion

Facts

Rhines was convicted in South Dakota state court of first-degree murder and third-degree burglary and sentenced to death. After state postconviction proceedings ended, he timely filed a federal habeas petition under § 2254; with appointed counsel he later filed an amended petition asserting 35 constitutional claims, and the State argued that 12 were unexhausted. The district court ultimately found 8 claims unexhausted, but by then AEDPA's 1-year limitations period had run, so dismissal of the mixed petition would likely have barred Rhines from returning to federal court after exhausting those claims. The district court therefore stayed the federal petition, conditioned on Rhines promptly seeking state exhaustion and returning promptly to federal court after exhaustion.

Issue

Whether a federal district court has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims, rather than dismiss it under Rose v. Lundy, so the petitioner may return to state court to exhaust claims without losing federal review under AEDPA's limitations period. If so, under what limits that discretion may be exercised.

Rule

A district court may stay and hold in abeyance a mixed § 2254 petition, but only in limited circumstances consistent with AEDPA. Stay and abeyance is appropriate only when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust first in state court, the unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless, and there is no indication of intentionally dilatory litigation tactics; any stay must include reasonable time limits on the petitioner's return to state court and back to federal court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Omar Bennett timely filed a federal § 2254 petition challenging his Arizona conviction. The district court later determined that two of his six claims had never been presented to the Arizona courts, and by then AEDPA’s one-year limitations period had expired. Omar shows a legitimate reason he failed to exhaust earlier, the unexhausted claims raise substantial constitutional questions, and nothing suggests he has been trying to slow the case down.

What is the best ruling on Omar’s request that the district court stay the federal case while he returns to state court to exhaust those claims?

Explanation. The majority held that AEDPA did not eliminate district courts’ authority to issue stays, but stay-and-abeyance is available only in limited circumstances. A stay is appropriate when the petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust first, the unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless, and there is no indication of intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Here those conditions are satisfied, and dismissal after the limitations period expired would likely forfeit federal review.