Rappsodi R. Ali v. State of Florida

Eleventh Circuit

Rappsodi R. Ali v. State of Florida

777 F.2d 1489, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25197

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1985

Docket85-3117

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 777 F.2d 1489 (Rappsodi R. Ali v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rappsodi R. Ali v. State of Florida, 777 F.2d 1489, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25197 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Rappsodi R. Ali appeals from a district court order summarily dismissing his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, before any response was filed by the state. The district court found that it was clear from the face of Ali’s petition that he had failed to exhaust available state remedies as to each of the issues he had raised in his petition.

A petition for habeas corpus relief must be dismissed if the petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedies available in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). In his petition, Ali acknowledged that two of his claims had not previously been presented in any other court. If any of the issues raised in a habeas corpus petition has not been exhausted, the petition as a whole must be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). Although we have held that a habeas petition may not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies before the state has responded and either set out a nonexhaustion defense or waived exhaustion, David v. Spears, 739 F.2d 634, slip op. at 2 (11th Cir.1984) (unpublished opinion), 1 *1490 in this case it would be futile to remand the case because it is clear from the state’s brief on appeal that it would not waive the exhaustion issue.

Because it is clear that the state is asserting exhaustion as a defense, and because it is clear that Ali did not exhaust available state remedies, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 2

1

. In David, the petitioner alleged that he had exhausted his state remedies. Prior to the state’s response, however, the district court dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust. This court held that because the state had not had an opportunity to either assert a nonexhaustion *1490 defense or waive same, and because the record did not indicate whether petitioner failed to exhaust, the district court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to exhaust.

2

. Ali's motion to strike the appendix to the state’s brief on appeal is DENIED as moot. His motion for appointment of counsel, treated as a motion for reconsideration of this court's order of May 14, 1985, which denied appointment of counsel, is DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Rappsodi R. Ali appeals from a district court order summarily dismissing his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, before any response was filed by the state. The district court found that it was clear from the face of Ali’s petition that he had failed to exhaust available state remedies as to each of the issues he had raised in his petition.

A petition for habeas corpus relief must be dismissed if the petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedies available in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). In his petition, Ali acknowledged that two of his claims had not previously been presented in any other court. If any of the issues raised in a habeas corpus petition has not been exhausted, the petition as a whole must be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). Although we have held that a habeas petition may not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies before the state has responded and either set out a nonexhaustion defense or waived exhaustion, David v. Spears, 739 F.2d 634, slip op. at 2 (11th Cir.1984) (unpublished opinion), 1 *1490 in this case it would be futile to remand the case because it is clear from the state’s brief on appeal that it would not waive the exhaustion issue.

Because it is clear that the state is asserting exhaustion as a defense, and because it is clear that Ali did not exhaust available state remedies, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 2

1

. In David, the petitioner alleged that he had exhausted his state remedies. Prior to the state’s response, however, the district court dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust. This court held that because the state had not had an opportunity to either assert a nonexhaustion *1490 defense or waive same, and because the record did not indicate whether petitioner failed to exhaust, the district court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to exhaust.

2

. Ali's motion to strike the appendix to the state’s brief on appeal is DENIED as moot. His motion for appointment of counsel, treated as a motion for reconsideration of this court's order of May 14, 1985, which denied appointment of counsel, is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 F.2d 1489, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rappsodi-r-ali-v-state-of-florida-ca11-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack