Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 554.0

529US2

Unit: $U50

[09-26-01 10:29:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 473 (2000)

479

Opinion of the Court

gated in state court. Accordingly, Slack ﬁled a motion seek-
ing to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he returned
to state court to exhaust the new claims. Without objection
by the State, the District Court ordered the habeas petition
dismissed “without prejudice.” The order, dated February
19, 1992, further stated, “Petitioner is granted leave to ﬁle an
application to renew upon exhaustion of all State remedies.”
Slack v. Director, Nev. Dept. of Prisons, No. CV–N–91–561
(D. Nev.), App. 22.

After an unsuccessful round of state postconviction pro-
ceedings, Slack ﬁled a new federal habeas petition on May
30, 1995. The District Court later appointed counsel, direct-
ing him to ﬁle an amended petition or a notice of intention
to proceed with the current petition. On December 24, 1997,
counsel ﬁled an amended petition presenting 14 claims for
relief. The State moved to dismiss the petition. As its ﬁrst
ground, the State argued that Slack’s petition must be dis-
missed because it was a mixed petition, that is to say a peti-
tion raising some claims which had been presented to the
state courts and some which had not. As its second ground,
the State cited Farmer v. McDaniel, 98 F. 3d 1548 (CA9
1996), and contended that, under the established rule in the
Ninth Circuit, claims Slack had not raised in his 1991 federal
habeas petition must be dismissed as an abuse of the writ.
The District Court granted the State’s motion. First, the
court relied on Farmer to hold that Slack’s 1995 petition was
“[a] second or successive petition,” even though his 1991 peti-
tion had been dismissed without prejudice for a failure to
exhaust state remedies. The court then invoked the abuse
of the writ doctrine to dismiss with prejudice the claims
Slack had not raised in the 1991 petition. This left Slack
with four claims, each having been raised in the 1991 peti-
tion; but one of these, the court concluded, had not yet been
presented to the state courts. The court therefore dis-
missed Slack’s remaining claims because they were in a