Legal Opinion

Carter v. Friel

District Court, D. Utah

Decided January 26, 2006No. 2:02 CV 326 TSPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING STAY AND ABEYANCE UNDER RHINES

STEWART, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s request for a Rhines 1 stay and abeyance of this case to allow him to exhaust his unexhausted claims in state court.

I. Introduction

Before the enactment of AEDPA’s 2 strict limitations period, mixed petitions under § 2254 3 -meaning those containing claims both exhausted and unexhausted in state court-were dismissed without prejudice to allow an attempt to exhaust claims in state court. After AEDPA, such dismissals raise serious limitations problems…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Riner v. CrawfordDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2006
  2. Carter v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Whitepipe v. WeberDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2007
  4. Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1)District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2022
  5. Dellinger v. Mays (DPLC1)District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2022

5 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