From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franzen v. Brinkman

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 8, 1989
877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Enno v. Blades
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 88-2618.

Submitted May 8, 1989.

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Decided June 8, 1989.

Bruce L. Franzen, Indian Springs, Nev., pro se.

No appearance for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before BROWNING, HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

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. Only one circuit has held to the contrary. Dickerson v. Walsh, 750 F.2d 150, 153-54 (1st Cir. 1984).

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).

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 habeas corpus proceedings.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Franzen v. Brinkman

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 8, 1989
877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989)

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Enno v. Blades

holding that “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings” in federal court

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Allen

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings."

Summary of this case from Emanuel v. Neven

holding that claims of error during state post-conviction proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas review

Summary of this case from Hawkins v. Christensen

holding that claims of error during state post-conviction proceedings are not subject to federal habeas review

Summary of this case from Larson v. Blades

holding that federal habeas relief is not available to a plaintiff challenging a state post-conviction review process

Summary of this case from Russ v. King

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Fox

holding "that a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings."

Summary of this case from Julieta v. Frauenheim

holding that claims of error during state postconviction proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas review, which allows for habeas relief only for violations of the federal constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty

Summary of this case from Green v. Neville

holding that claims of error during state postconviction proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas review

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. Ramirez

holding that delay of over one year in court's adjudication of PCR petition does not constitute an attack on the prisoner's detention and is not a proper ground for habeas relief

Summary of this case from Cassise v. Ryan

holding that a due process claim arising from state post-conviction review proceeding is not cognizable on federal habeas review

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Neven

holding "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Eftenoff v. Ryan

holding that federal habeas corpus is not the proper avenue to address errors in a state's postconviction review process

Summary of this case from Northrup v. Blades

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas . . . proceedings"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Cox

holding that alleged errors in the state post-conviction review process are not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings

Summary of this case from Hooper v. McDaniel

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings."

Summary of this case from Hairston v. Blades

holding that "a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Videgain v. Valdez

finding that errors in the PCR process do not represent an attack on the constitutionality of the prisoner's detention

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Shinn

finding that a claim challenging the delay in ruling on a state habeas corpus petition was not "addressable through habeas corpus proceedings"

Summary of this case from Fletcher v. Lizarraga

finding allegations of error in state post-conviction review process non-cognizable

Summary of this case from Higgins v. Ryan

finding delay in state habeas proceedings not addressable in federal habeas

Summary of this case from Ybarra v. Ayers

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"

Summary of this case from Quince v. Crosby

In Franzen, the petitioner alleged a due process violation stemming from the appellate court delay in deciding his petition for post-conviction relief.

Summary of this case from Juarez v. E. Dist. of Cal.

In Franzen, the petitioner alleged a due process violation because the appellate court took more than a year to decide his petition for post-conviction relief.

Summary of this case from Jones v. Borders
Case details for

Franzen v. Brinkman

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE L. FRANZEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. BRINKMAN, WARDEN, ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 8, 1989

Citations

877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989)

Citing Cases

Ochoa v. Ontiveros

On February 18, 2009, Judge Duncan determined that Petitioner's first, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth,…

West v. Schriro

Regardless of whether these claims were exhausted in state court, they are not cognizable in federal habeas…

507 Citing Cases