United States ex rel. Bartkowski v. Mazurkiewicz

E.D. Pennsylvania

United States ex rel. Bartkowski v. Mazurkiewicz

334 F. Supp. 995, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11070

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 27, 1971

DocketCiv. A. No. 71-1467

StatusPublished

This text of 334 F. Supp. 995 (United States ex rel. Bartkowski v. Mazurkiewicz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Bartkowski v. Mazurkiewicz, 334 F. Supp. 995, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11070 (E.D. Pa. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[996]*996MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

This case comes before the court on a motion by a state prisoner for reconsideration of an order refusing a writ of habeas corpus.

On October 12, 1971, I dismissed the petition of Edward Bartkowski because he had failed to exhaust state remedies available under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. Bartkowski again asks that the writ be issued, contending any collateral proceedings in state court would be futile because the Commonwealth decided the issues adversely to him when his direct efforts to obtain a new trial were denied. He points out that the trial court turned down his post-trial motions, the Superior Court affirmed,¹ and the Supreme Court would not grant allocatur.

Neither the Superior Court nor the trial court, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, filed an opinion to support its action. Therefore, the basis for rejecting petitioner’s claims is not clear. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has indicated its desire that all federal constitutional questions be decided by the courts of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth ex rel. Harbold v. Myers, 417 Pa. 358, 366, 207 A.2d 805 (1965); Commonwealth v. Snyder, 427 Pa. 83, 89-90, 233 A.2d 530 (1967). Accordingly, I believe that justice and comity will best be served by requiring Bartkowski to seek collateral relief in the state courts. In this way, a complete factual background for any constitutional questions will be provided and the issues framed: See Eldridge v. Crouse, 400 F.2d 94 (10 Cir. 1968) and Ingram v. Wingo, 297 F.Supp. 1344 (E.D.Ky.1969). These issues can then be passed upon by judges whose duty to afford the petitioner all of his rights under the Constitution of the United States is no less than mine.

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

[996]*996MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

This case comes before the court on a motion by a state prisoner for reconsideration of an order refusing a writ of habeas corpus.

On October 12, 1971, I dismissed the petition of Edward Bartkowski because he had failed to exhaust state remedies available under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. Bartkowski again asks that the writ be issued, contending any collateral proceedings in state court would be futile because the Commonwealth decided the issues adversely to him when his direct efforts to obtain a new trial were denied. He points out that the trial court turned down his post-trial motions, the Superior Court affirmed,¹ and the Supreme Court would not grant allocatur.

Neither the Superior Court nor the trial court, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, filed an opinion to support its action. Therefore, the basis for rejecting petitioner’s claims is not clear. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has indicated its desire that all federal constitutional questions be decided by the courts of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth ex rel. Harbold v. Myers, 417 Pa. 358, 366, 207 A.2d 805 (1965); Commonwealth v. Snyder, 427 Pa. 83, 89-90, 233 A.2d 530 (1967). Accordingly, I believe that justice and comity will best be served by requiring Bartkowski to seek collateral relief in the state courts. In this way, a complete factual background for any constitutional questions will be provided and the issues framed: See Eldridge v. Crouse, 400 F.2d 94 (10 Cir. 1968) and Ingram v. Wingo, 297 F.Supp. 1344 (E.D.Ky.1969). These issues can then be passed upon by judges whose duty to afford the petitioner all of his rights under the Constitution of the United States is no less than mine.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F. Supp. 995, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-bartkowski-v-mazurkiewicz-paed-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack