IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH L. OSBORN, KENNETH L. OSBORN, APPELLANT. KENNETH L. OSBORN, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY E. RUSSELL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. KENNETH L. OSBORN, APPELLANT, V. HARRY E. RUSSELL; KENNETH L. OSBORN, C-3638, APPELLANT, V. HARRY E. RUSSELL

3d Cir. | 1970-12-03
Nos. 18041-18043 and 18174
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and MeLAUGHLIN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
434 F.2d 650 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the relator had exhausted state remedies on direct appeal, satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions.


Facts & Procedural History

Relator filed four habeas corpus petitions in federal district court, which were denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. However, subsequent inf…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

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.

. Since the entry of the order in question, Chief Judge Gourley has assumed Senior Judge status.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw