Richard Lee Davidson and Walter Vernon Thomas v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, and Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison

411 F.2d 746
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 9, 1969
Docket22563_1
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 746 (Richard Lee Davidson and Walter Vernon Thomas v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, and Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richard Lee Davidson and Walter Vernon Thomas v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, and Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this habeas proceeding appellants ask a federal court to set aside their state criminal convictions which are still pending on appeal in a state appellate court.

While the federal constitutional question which they present in this federal habeas proceeding may not be available to them on their state appeal, that appeal may result in reversal on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.

Moreover, if the federal question is not available to appellants on the pending state appeal, it may be available to them in state post-conviction proceedings instituted after disposition of that appeal. The fact that appellants’ state post-conviction proceedings, instituted pending the state appeal, resulted in the denial of relief, is not dispositive as to the availability of a state post-conviction remedy after the state appellate court has acted upon the appeal.

Appellants have not exhausted their available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1964); Christiansen v. O’Con-nor, 9 Cir., 378 F.2d 364. On this ground, and without prejudice to appellants’ right to raise a constitutional question in a federal court at the proper time, the order denying the application is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Bradford v. Johnson
D. Nevada, 2021
(HC) Jones v. Hill
E.D. California, 2020
Johnson v. Lombardo
D. Nevada, 2020
Armando Lopez v. Stu Sherman
C.D. California, 2020
Anderson v. Williams
D. Nevada, 2019
Donald O. Coe v. Otis Thurman, Warden
922 F.2d 528 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Sherwood v. Tomkins
716 F.2d 632 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)
David Piercy v. Robert F. Parratt, Warden
579 F.2d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
John D. Miller v. Frank Hall
536 F.2d 967 (First Circuit, 1976)
Trujillo v. Stone
384 F. Supp. 633 (N.D. California, 1974)
Bradley v. JUDGES OF SUPERIOR CT. FOR CTY. OF LOS ANGELES
372 F. Supp. 26 (C.D. California, 1974)
Ronald Williams v. Mel Bailey
463 F.2d 247 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
Sevilla v. Pitchess
331 F. Supp. 86 (C.D. California, 1971)
Tippett v. Nelson
331 F. Supp. 383 (C.D. California, 1971)
Manson v. Pitchess
317 F. Supp. 816 (C.D. California, 1970)
Dale Leroy Daniels v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, Etc.
415 F.2d 323 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
411 F.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-lee-davidson-and-walter-vernon-thomas-v-warden-j-h-klinger-ca9-1969.