Legal Opinion
Douglas James v. Sheryl Pliler Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 29, 2001No. 98-56751PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
The question presented by this appeal is whether a district court, presented with a petition for habeas review that includes exhausted and unexhausted claims, must explain to a pro se petitioner that he can amend the petition by deleting the unexhausted claims and proceed with only those that have been exhausted, rather than suffering dismissal of the entire petition without prejudice. As foreshadowed by our prior decision in this case, James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.2000) (“James I”), we conclude that the court must advise the petitioner of the right to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Duncan v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Noll v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Hiram WebbCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Andreas Kelly v. Larry Small, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- King v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Fred Jay Jackson v. Ernest C. Roe, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- John Espiredion Valerio v. Jackie Crawford, Director of the Department of Prisons E.K. McDaniel WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Gregory Paul Biggs v. William Duncan, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.