Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02990/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Russell Rhines
Appellee
Douglas Weber
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2990

___________

Charles Russell Rhines, *

*

Petitioner - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

*

Douglas Weber, Warden, South Dakota * [PUBLISHED]

State Penitentiary, *

*

Respondent - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 2, 2003

Filed: October 7, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Charles Russell Rhines filed this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, alleging that numerous constitutional errors infected his 1993 firstdegree murder conviction. The district court entered an order declaring that Rhines

failed to exhaust some federal claims and that non-futile state court remedies may still

be available to him. The court stayed all claims pending exhaustion of state court

remedies for the unexhausted claims. Warden Douglas Weber appeals. We have

jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review an interlocutory order

Appellate Case: 02-2990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2003 Entry ID: 1693899
-2-

holding a habeas petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies.

Carmichael v. White, 163 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir. 1998). 

This court has recently addressed the question whether habeas claims may be

stayed while the habeas petitioner seeks state court remedies on claims that may be

unexhausted. Akins v. Kenney, No. 02-1913, slip op. at 7-9 (8th Cir. Sep. 2, 2003).

Akins precludes the district court from staying Rhines’s exhausted claims while he

seeks state post-conviction relief on other claims that may be unexhausted. However,

Akins did not decide whether a petitioner may delete unexhausted claims while

proceeding only on the claims he believes are fully exhausted. Nor did Akins

preclude a petitioner from electing to forego further state court proceedings, in which

case he would presumably proceed on all claims in the federal habeas action and

contest any argument by respondent that the unexhausted claims are procedurally

barred. These issues are better addressed initially in the district court. Accordingly,

the district court’s order of July 3, 2002 is vacated, and the case is remanded for

further consideration. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-2990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2003 Entry ID: 1693899