BRUCE L. FRANZEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
BRINKMAN, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
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.
Errors in a state post-conviction review process are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
Appellant filed a habeas petition claiming a state court's year-long delay in deciding his post-conviction relief petition violated due process. The d…
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 State Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Franzen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below, claiming the Nevada State District Court’s delay of over a year in deciding his petition for state post-conviction relief violated his due process rights. The United States District Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the ground that petitioner’s assertions of error in the state post-conviction proceeding do not represent an attack on the prisoner’s detention and therefore are not proper grounds for habeas relief. The district court noted the habeas dismissal would not prejudice Franzen’s ability to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A habeas petition must allege the petitioner’s detention violates the constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21, 96 S.Ct. 175, 177, 46 L.Ed.2d 162 (1975) (per curiam). Whether errors in a state post-conviction review proceeding are addressable through federal habeas corpus is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Four circuits have held they are not.1 Only one circuit has held to the contrary. Dickerson v. Walsh, 750 F. 2d 150, 153-54 (1st Cir.1984).
We join the majority and affirm the district court’s holding that a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habe-as corpus proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
. See Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F. 2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir.1989); Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F. 2d 1403, 1410 (5th Cir.1987); Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F. 2d 245, 247-48 (6th Cir.1986); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F. 2d 773, 774 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam); see also United States ex rel. Curtis v. Illinois, 521 F. 2d 717, 721 (7th Cir.1975) (dicta).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2004)
-
Cassidy v. McNeil, 621 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…ate habeas proceeding does not entitle the petitioner to habeas relief in respect to his conviction, as it is an attack on a proceeding collateral to the detention and not the detention itself.”) (internal quotes omitted); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (agreeing with the majority view and holding that “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings”). Therefore, while habeas relief is available to addr…
-
N.H. Indem. Co. v. Scott, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (M.D. Fla. 2012)…state post-conviction or collateral review proceedings are not the proper subject of federal habeas review. Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1123, 119 S.Ct. 1777, 143 L.Ed.2d 806 (1999); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012, 110 S.Ct. 574, 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989). Thus, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Ground Fourteen was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal…
Authorities Cited
- Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1975)
- Samarzia v. Clark Cnty., 866 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1989)
- Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984)
- Dickerson v. Walsh, 750 F.2d 150 (1st Cir. 1984)
- Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403 (5th Cir. 1987)
- Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1986)
- United States ex rel. Edward Curtis v. People OF the State OF Ill. & John J. Twomey, 521 F.2d 717 (7th Cir. 1975)