Tucker

Tucker v. Hill

Good Law
74 F. App'x 698
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 16, 2003No. 02-35720; D.C. No. CV-00-00955-COCalifornia731 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Leon Tucker (“Tucker”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas petition. Tucker’s habeas petition raises two grounds for relief. First, that his due process rights were violated when the state court refused to sever his case from that of his co-defendants. Second, Tucker alleges that his 30-year sentence is a disproportionate punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because his co-defendant, who was more culpable and convicted of the same crimes, received a lesser sentence.

Because the facts of the case are known to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding.

“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that ... the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A). “[A] state prisoner has not fairly presented (and thus exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.