Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Niederstadt v. Nixon

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided October 17, 2007No. 05-4329Published

1Concurring in the judgmentColloton, Circuit Judge

I conclude that James Niederstadt’s due process claim was procedurally defaulted in the Missouri courts, and that he is barred from pursuing it in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. I therefore concur in the judgment reversing the decision of the district court.

Under Missouri law, a constitutional claim must be raised at the earliest opportunity, State v. Galazin, 58 S.W.3d 500, 505 (Mo.2001), and a state prisoner who fails to present his claim in accordance with state procedure is barred from raising the claim in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Sweet v. Delo, 125 F.3d 1144, 1149-50…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API