Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court must dismiss a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus if it contains a mix of claims that have been fully litigated in state court (exhausted) and claims that have not (unexhausted). This is known as the "total exhaustion" rule.
Facts:
- Noah Lundy was tried by a jury in Tennessee state court for rape and crime against nature.
- During the trial, the court limited the defense counsel’s questioning of the victim.
- The prosecuting attorney made a statement in the presence of the jury suggesting Lundy had a violent character.
- In his closing argument, the prosecutor remarked that the State’s evidence was uncontradicted.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that 'every witness is presumed to swear the truth.'
- Lundy was convicted on both charges.
Procedural Posture:
- Noah Lundy was convicted of rape and crime against nature in a Tennessee state trial court.
- Lundy appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the convictions.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court denied Lundy's petition for review.
- Lundy then filed an unsuccessful petition for postconviction relief in the Knox County Criminal Court.
- Lundy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, alleging four claims, two of which the court identified as unexhausted in state courts.
- The District Court granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding Lundy's right to a fair trial had been violated.
- The State of Tennessee appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the court could properly rule on the exhausted claims despite the presence of unexhausted ones.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exhaustion rule in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a federal district court to dismiss a habeas corpus petition that contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. A district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. The exhaustion doctrine, codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is designed to protect the role of state courts in enforcing federal law and to prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings out of respect for comity. A 'total exhaustion' rule encourages prisoners to present all their claims to the state courts first, which gives state courts the initial opportunity to correct constitutional errors and helps develop a complete factual record for any subsequent federal review. Requiring dismissal of these 'mixed petitions' relieves federal courts of the difficult task of separating related claims and reduces piecemeal litigation. The prisoner is left with the choice of either returning to state court to exhaust all claims or amending the federal petition to present only the exhausted claims.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Agrees with the Court's holding that a mixed petition must be dismissed, but dissents from the plurality's reasoning in Part III-C regarding the consequences of amending a petition. A prisoner who amends a petition to remove unexhausted claims, as required by the Court's new rule, is not 'deliberately' abandoning them in the sense required to trigger an 'abuse of the writ' dismissal under Rule 9(b) for a subsequent petition. Such a dismissal would be improper because the prisoner's action is compelled by the court, not undertaken as a tactic to vex, harass, or delay.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White
Agrees with Justice Brennan that a petitioner should not be penalized for abuse of the writ if they refile previously unexhausted claims. However, disagrees with the majority's total dismissal rule. A district court should not be required to dismiss the entire petition; rather, it should rule on the exhausted claims and dismiss only the unexhausted ones, unless the claims are intertwined or the petitioner prefers total dismissal.
Concurrence - Justice Blackmun
Concurs only in the judgment to remand the case, but disagrees with the creation of a total exhaustion rule. This rule operates as a trap for uneducated, pro se prisoners, creates unnecessary delays in resolving meritorious claims, and increases the caseload for both federal and state courts. The better approach, adopted by most Courts of Appeals, is for the district court to consider the exhausted claims on their merits while dismissing the unexhausted claims, unless the claims are too interrelated to be separated.
Dissent - Justice Stevens
No. The majority's inflexible, mechanical 'total exhaustion' rule is an unnecessary and unwise act of judicial lawmaking that will complicate and delay habeas petitions. The District Court correctly evaluated the exhausted claims in the context of the entire trial record, which is a necessary part of determining if an error was prejudicial. District judges should have the discretion to manage their dockets and decide whether to proceed with exhausted claims, dismiss the entire petition, or take other appropriate action based on the nature of the claims presented.
Analysis:
This case establishes the landmark 'total exhaustion' rule for federal habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners. It resolves a circuit split and creates a rigid, bright-line procedural requirement that significantly impacts habeas litigation. The decision strengthens the principle of comity by ensuring state courts have the first opportunity to review all of a prisoner's federal claims. For litigants, it forces a strategic choice: either exhaust all claims in state court, potentially taking years, or proceed in federal court on a subset of claims and risk, according to the plurality, forfeiting the unexhausted ones under the 'abuse of the writ' doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Rose v. Lundy