Osborn v. Russell

Third Circuit

Osborn v. Russell

434 F.2d 650

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1970

DocketNos. 18041-18043 and 18174

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 650 (Osborn v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Osborn v. Russell, 434 F.2d 650 (3d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Relator Osborn has filed four petitions for Habeas Corpus in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Chief Judge Wallace Gourley¹ reviewed the papers filed by Osborn and because these papers did not indicate that Osborn had pursued remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the District Court denied the petitions on the ground Osborn had failed to exhaust state remedies.

However, it appears from the documents filed by Osborn in Civil Action No. 69-14 and from statements contained in the Commonwealth’s brief to this Court that Osborn exhausted his state remedies on direct appeal and that the Pennsylvania courts indeed rejected on his direct appeal the same constitutional contentions Osborn now raises in the federal courts. It is well settled that no more is required of Osborn by the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1963); United States ex rel. Fletcher v. Maroney, 413 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Howard v. Russell, 405 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the dismissal of the habeas corpus petitions will be reversed and the case remanded in order that the district court may verify that Osborn has exhausted the remedies provided by Pennsylvania, and thereafter determine the merits of Osborn’s claims.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Relator Osborn has filed four petitions for Habeas Corpus in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Chief Judge Wallace Gourley¹ reviewed the papers filed by Osborn and because these papers did not indicate that Osborn had pursued remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the District Court denied the petitions on the ground Osborn had failed to exhaust state remedies.

However, it appears from the documents filed by Osborn in Civil Action No. 69-14 and from statements contained in the Commonwealth’s brief to this Court that Osborn exhausted his state remedies on direct appeal and that the Pennsylvania courts indeed rejected on his direct appeal the same constitutional contentions Osborn now raises in the federal courts. It is well settled that no more is required of Osborn by the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1963); United States ex rel. Fletcher v. Maroney, 413 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Howard v. Russell, 405 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the dismissal of the habeas corpus petitions will be reversed and the case remanded in order that the district court may verify that Osborn has exhausted the remedies provided by Pennsylvania, and thereafter determine the merits of Osborn’s claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborn-v-russell-ca3-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack