Pliler v. Ford
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), federal district courts must dismiss “mixed” habeas corpus petitions — those containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. In this case, we decide whether the District Court erred by dismissing, pursuant to Rose, a pro se habeas petitioner’s two habeas petitions without giving him two particular advisements. Because we hold that the District Court’s failure to provide these warnings did not make the dismissals improper, we need not address the second question presented, whether respondent’s subsequent untimely petitions relate back to his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Castro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ford v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
3Cited by1,066 opinions
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Kelley Mala v. Crown Bay MarinaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. CareyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Day v. McDonoughSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Dean Hedges v. United States of America Environmental Moorings InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
1,061 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.