Rose v. Lundy

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusExhaustion of State Remedieshabeas corpus§ 2254exhaustionmixed petitioncomity

Facts

Respondent, a Tennessee prisoner convicted of rape and crime against nature, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging four grounds for relief. The District Court concluded that claims three and four had not been exhausted in state court, but it nevertheless reviewed the trial record, discussed additional alleged prosecutorial misconduct not raised in state court or even in the habeas petition, and granted relief. The District Court reasoned that the violations were intertwined and that respondent had not received a fair trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed and rejected the State's argument that the mixed petition should have been dismissed.

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c) require a federal district court to dismiss a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims? Put differently, must federal courts apply a total exhaustion rule to mixed petitions?

Rule

A federal district court must dismiss a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The prisoner must then either return to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims or amend or resubmit the federal petition to present only exhausted claims.

🔒

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.

After a robbery conviction in Ohio, Daniel Mercer files a federal habeas petition under § 2254 in Columbus raising four claims. He presented three claims to the Ohio courts through the state's highest court, but one ineffective-assistance claim was never presented in any state proceeding and state postconviction review remains available.

What should the federal district court do?

Explanation. The majority adopted a total exhaustion rule for § 2254 petitions. If any claim in the petition is unexhausted and state remedies remain available, the petition is mixed and must be dismissed. The prisoner may then return to state court to exhaust or amend/resubmit a petition containing only exhausted claims.