GEORGE CHARLES IMHOFF, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
SHERIFF CLARENCE JONES, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
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.
The order denying a petition for habeas corpus without prejudice to reapply after exhausting state remedies is affirmed.
Appellant sought federal habeas corpus relief. The district court denied the petition without prejudice, finding that state remedies had not been exha…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court denying the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus without prejudice to his right to reapply after he has exhausted his state remedies is affirmed.
As a matter of comity, federal courts should not determine the legality of a state prisoner’s detention, unless his state courts have first been given the opportunity to consider the case. Therefore, the appellant’s allegations of constitutional deprivations will not be entertained in a federal forum until they have been presented to the courts of the State of Texas, either upon the appellant’s direct criminal appeal, or upon a motion filed pursuant to Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Weaver v. Texas, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 388; Thomas v. Decker, 5th Cir. 1970, 434 F. 2d 1033; Texas v. Payton, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F. 2d 261.
This panel recently held in Williams v. Wainwright, 452 F. 2d 775 (5th Cir., 1971), in an opinion by Judge Roney and a special concurrence by Chief Judge Brown, that a judgment dismiss ing a petition for the writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust state remedies should specify the state remedies not exhausted by petitioner. In the case at bar the record does not indicate that there had been a trial in the state court, hence no appeal and no post-trial proceedings.. The petition should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b) as it is not shown that petitioner was held pursuant to judgment of a state court. But dismissed it was.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Jules v. Beto, 462 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Singleton v. Estelle, 492 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- The State OF Tex. & Dr. George J. Beto v. Payton, 390 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 452 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Weaver v. State OF Tex., 441 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Bella Vista Hotel Apts., Inc. v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 434 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Thomas v. Decker, 434 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1970)