Thompson v. Secretary for Department of Corrections

Eleventh Circuit

Thompson v. Secretary for Department of Corrections

425 F.3d 1364, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 2005 WL 2335550

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 26, 2005

Docket02-10642

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 425 F.3d 1364 (Thompson v. Secretary for Department of Corrections) 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

Thompson v. Secretary for Department of Corrections, 425 F.3d 1364, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 2005 WL 2335550 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A Florida district court heard Thompson’s mixed petition for habeas relief. In 2003, we decided that, if the district court had the discretion not to dismiss a mixed habeas petition, the court did not abuse its discretion by offering Thompson the choice of abandoning his unexhausted claims and proceeding on the exhausted claims or of having his entire petition dismissed. Thompson v. Crosby, 320 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) vacated by — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1722, 161 L.Ed.2d 596 (2005).

Thompson appealed our decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Court remanded the matter to us for further consideration in the light of Rhines v. Weber, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). After reviewing our previous decision and the Court’s opinion in Rhines, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further consideration.

In Rhines, the Court said what we had assumed: district courts may order a stay and abeyance of mixed petitions “in limited circumstances.” 125 S.Ct. at 1535. *1366 A district court should grant a stay and abeyance if (1) the petitioner had “good cause” for failing to exhaust the claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are “potentially meritorious;” and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id.

Here, the district court offered the petitioner a choice that the Supreme Court approved in Rhines: “allow the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner’s right to obtain federal relief.” Id. But that choice should only be offered if a stay is unwarranted. Because we cannot discern from the district court’s order whether it considered the three Rhines factors, we vacate its order dismissing the habeas petition and remand for further consideration.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

A Florida district court heard Thompson’s mixed petition for habeas relief. In 2003, we decided that, if the district court had the discretion not to dismiss a mixed habeas petition, the court did not abuse its discretion by offering Thompson the choice of abandoning his unexhausted claims and proceeding on the exhausted claims or of having his entire petition dismissed. Thompson v. Crosby, 320 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) vacated by — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1722, 161 L.Ed.2d 596 (2005).

Thompson appealed our decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Court remanded the matter to us for further consideration in the light of Rhines v. Weber, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). After reviewing our previous decision and the Court’s opinion in Rhines, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further consideration.

In Rhines, the Court said what we had assumed: district courts may order a stay and abeyance of mixed petitions “in limited circumstances.” 125 S.Ct. at 1535. *1366 A district court should grant a stay and abeyance if (1) the petitioner had “good cause” for failing to exhaust the claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are “potentially meritorious;” and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id.

Here, the district court offered the petitioner a choice that the Supreme Court approved in Rhines: “allow the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner’s right to obtain federal relief.” Id. But that choice should only be offered if a stay is unwarranted. Because we cannot discern from the district court’s order whether it considered the three Rhines factors, we vacate its order dismissing the habeas petition and remand for further consideration.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F.3d 1364, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20873, 2005 WL 2335550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-secretary-for-department-of-corrections-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack