Deere

Deere v. Superior Court

Good Law
330 F. App'x 693
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 5, 2009No. 07-56109California427 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

While in state custody awaiting trial, Arthur Ray Deere filed a federal habeas *694 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights. Section 2241(c)(3) permits federal courts to grant relief to a pretrial detainee held “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3); see also McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 , 824 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003). Deere’s petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

We granted a Certifícate of Appealability on the question whether a § 2241 petitioner must first exhaust his state court remedies. To the extent this question has not been decided, compare Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-91 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (emphasizing that the § 2241 petitioner “exhausted all available state court remedies for consideration of [his speedy trial] constitutional claim”), and McNeely, 336 F.3d at 826 (same), with White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.2004) (“If we were to allow White to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , he would not be subject to ... state court exhaustion requirements.”), we decline to decide it here.…

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.