Legal Opinion

Deere v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 5, 2009No. 07-56109PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

While in state custody awaiting trial, Arthur Ray Deere filed a federal habeas *694petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights. Section 2241(c)(3) permits federal courts to grant relief to a pretrial detainee held “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003). Deere’s petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

We granted a Certifícate of Appealability on the question whether a § 2241 petitioner must first exhaust his state court…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Joel White v. John Lambert, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. Dock McNeely v. Lou BlanasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stanley v. BacaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2015
  2. (HC) Bingaman v. WardenDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  3. (HC) Sinclair v. SchaberDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API