Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 563.0

529US2

Unit: $U50

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

488

SLACK v. McDANIEL

Opinion of the Court

as though it had not been ﬁled, subject to whatever condi-
tions the court attaches to the dismissal. Rose v. Lundy
dictated that, whatever particular claims the petition con-
tained, none could be considered by the federal court.

Slack’s 1991 petition was dismissed under the procedure
established in Rose v. Lundy. No claim made in Slack’s 1991
petition was adjudicated during the three months it was
pending in federal court. As such, the 1995 petition should
not have been dismissed on the grounds that it was second
or successive. Reasoning to the contrary found in the Court
of Appeals’ Farmer decision, rendered before Martinez-
Villareal, is incorrect. See also In re Turner, 101 F. 3d 1323
(CA9 1997) (refusing to apply rules governing second or suc-
cessive petitions to a petitioner whose prior habeas petition
had been dismissed for failure to exhaust). Our view that
established practice demonstrates that Slack’s 1995 petition
is not second or successive is conﬁrmed as well by opinions
of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed the point
under similar circumstances. E. g., Carlson v. Pitcher, 137
F. 3d 416, 420 (CA6 1998) (“We join with every other court
to consider the question, and hold that a habeas petition ﬁled
after a previous petition has been dismissed on exhaustion
grounds is not a ‘second or successive’ petition”); Turner,
supra; Christy v. Horn, 115 F. 3d 201, 208 (CA3 1997); Dick-
inson v. Maine, 101 F. 3d 791 (CA1 1996); Camarano v. Irvin,
98 F. 3d 44, 45–46 (CA2 1996).

The State complains that this rule is unfair. The ﬁling of
a mixed petition in federal court requires it to appear and
to plead failure to exhaust. The petition is then dismissed
without prejudice, allowing the prisoner to make a return
trip through the state courts to exhaust new claims. The
State expresses concern that, upon exhaustion, the prisoner
would return to federal court but again ﬁle a mixed petition,
causing the process to repeat itself.
In this manner, the
State contends, a vexatious litigant could inject undue delay
into the collateral review process. To the extent the tactic