Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 512.0

529US2

Unit: $U47

[10-04-01 09:34:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 420 (2000)

437

Opinion of the Court

rights secured by the Constitution in state criminal proceed-
ings. Diligence will require in the usual case that the pris-
oner, at a minimum, seek an evidentiary hearing in state
court in the manner prescribed by state law.
“Comity . . .
dictates that when a prisoner alleges that his continued con-
ﬁnement for a state court conviction violates federal law, the
state courts should have the ﬁrst opportunity to review this
claim and provide any necessary relief.” O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838, 844 (1999). For state courts to have
their rightful opportunity to adjudicate federal rights, the
prisoner must be diligent in developing the record and pre-
senting, if possible, all claims of constitutional error.
If the
prisoner fails to do so, himself or herself contributing to the
absence of a full and fair adjudication in state court,
§ 2254(e)(2) prohibits an evidentiary hearing to develop the
relevant claims in federal court, unless the statute’s other
stringent requirements are met. Federal courts sitting in
habeas are not an alternative forum for trying facts and is-
sues which a prisoner made insufﬁcient effort to pursue in
state proceedings. Yet comity is not served by saying a
prisoner “has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim”
where he was unable to develop his claim in state court de-
spite diligent effort.
In that circumstance, an evidentiary
hearing is not barred by § 2254(e)(2).

III

Now we apply the statutory test.

If there has been no
lack of diligence at the relevant stages in the state proceed-
ings, the prisoner has not “failed to develop” the facts under
§ 2254(e)(2)’s opening clause, and he will be excused from
showing compliance with the balance of the subsection’s re-
quirements. We ﬁnd lack of diligence as to one of the three
claims but not as to the other two.

A
Petitioner did not exercise the diligence required to pre-
serve the claim that nondisclosure of Cruse’s psychiatric re-