Louis Eugene Russell v. Tom Rolfs, Superintendent

Louis Eugene Russell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court found that the issues raised in the petition were waived by Russell due to a state procedural default. On appeal, Russell disputes this finding, arguing that the Washington Supreme Court reached the merits of his claim, and, in the alternative, that a procedural barrier should not deny him relief. Russell also contends that sufficient cause and prejudice exist to entitle him to a federal hearing on the merits, and he suggests that the state should be estopped from raising the issue of procedural bar to deny him relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

I

The charges against Russell stemmed from a series of events which began when Russell was invited to the home of two strangers, Kenneth and Sherry Hanks. The evening ended with the death of Mr. Hanks, and with the severe stabbing and alleged rape of Mrs. Hanks.

Mrs. Hanks, the prosecution’s main witness, testified that Russell killed her husband, raped her at knifepoint, and then stabbed her. Russell, testifying on his own behalf, related a…

dissenting:

Habeas corpus is, without doubt, one of the most complex and troubling areas of federal law. One can fairly debate whether the existing system of procedural bars and exhaustion requirements creates unnecessary obstacles and delays to federal review of prisoners’ constitutional claims. Compare Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases, Committee Report and Proposal (Judicial Conference of the United States, Aug 23, 1989), with Stephen Reinhardt, Must We Rush the Executioner?, L.A. Times B7 (Nov 7, 1989). As judges of an inferior federal court we are not in a position to make such judgments. These rules are established by Congress and by the Supreme Court; our obligation is to apply them. As they now stand, these rules place certain hurdles in the path of the federal habeas petitioner, hurdles put in place largely out of a respect for state interests. We may ignore neither these rules nor these interests.

Today the majority needlessly encroaches on the interests of the State of Washington, by allowing a challenge to a state conviction where the state had its own adequate and independent reasons for doing what it did. To make things worse, the majority…

893 F.2d 1033 Louis Eugene RUSSELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom ROLFS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee. No. 88-3936. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1989. Decided Jan. 9, 1990. John Midgley, Smith, Midgley & Pumplin, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner-appellant. John M. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Olympia, Wash., for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges. TROTT, Circuit Judge: 1 Louis Eugene Russell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court found that the issues raised in the petition were waived by Russell due to a state procedural default. On appeal, Russell disputes this finding, arguing that the Washington Supreme Court reached the merits of his claim, and, in the alternative, that a procedural barrier should not deny him relief. Russell also contends that sufficient cause and prejudice exist to entitle him to a federal hearing on the merits, and he suggests that the state should be estopped from…