WAYNE EDWARD PRYOR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, 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.
A federal habeas petition is not barred as successive if the prior petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, and the petitioner has since exhausted those remedies.
Petitioner's prior federal habeas petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. He subsequently exhausted state remedies and filed a new …
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 28 U.S.C. § 2244 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from the district court’s denial of leave to file in forma pauperis the habeas corpus petition of Wayne Edward Pryor, a prisoner of the State of Texas. We vacate the order appealed from, and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Pryor is seeking relief from his conviction in the 34th District Court in El Paso, Texas of armed robbery. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Pryor v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1969, 449 S.W. 2d 482.
The appellant’s previous federal habeas petition was denied on April 6, 1971 on grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pryor has alleged that he then proceeded to exhaust his available remedies under Art. 11.07, Vernon’s Ann. Tex.C.Cr.P. This he did by filing a petition for habeas corpus in the sentencing court. Acting on the recommendations of that court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief on June 8, 1971. This would constitute exhaustion of Texas state remedies as to any • contentions thus presented. See State of Texas v. Payton, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F. 2d 261; Bruce v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F. 2d 212; Welch v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1968, 400 F. 2d 582.
Thereafter, on July 21, 1971 Pryor sought to file his instant habeas petition in the United States District Court. That court denied leave to file on grounds it was a successive petition involving the same matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Such a ruling would be proper if the previous adjudication was on the merits of the petition. Here, however, the earlier petition was denied merely on grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies. In this circumstance, a subsequent federal petition following exhaustion of state remedies is not barred. Peters v. Rutledge, 5th Cir. 1968, 397 F. 2d 731; Welch v. Beto, supra; Boyer v. City of Orlando, 5th Cir. 1968, 402 F. 2d 966.
The order appealed from is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with what has been said herein. Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1987)
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)
- Peters v. Rutledge, 397 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Boyer v. City OF Orlando, 402 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Bruce v. Beto, 396 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Welch v. Beto, 400 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1968)