Opinion ID: 489969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegations of State Obstruction

Text: 13 Mayberry sought to make such a showing by claiming in the district court that he was obstructed by state officials from pursuing his appeal. App. at 9. The Supreme Court has suggested, without elaboration, that failure to exhaust state remedies will not bar federal habeas corpus review where state officials have interfered with a habeas petitioner's utilization of state remedies. In Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), the Court so stated first in discussing the petitioners' failure to appeal (Of course, federal habeas corpus is allowed where time has expired without appeal when the prisoner is detained without opportunity to appeal because of lack of counsel, incapacity, or some interference by officials. Id. at 485-86, 73 S.Ct. at 422 (emphasis added)), and then in discussing the petitioners' failure to use the state's remedy for collateral relief (A failure to use a state's available remedy, in the absence of some interference or incapacity, such as is referred to [in cases involving denial of counsel], bars federal habeas corpus. Id. at 487, 73 S.Ct. at 422 (emphasis added)). The Court also suggested last term that some interference by officials which made compliance impractical would constitute cause, under the cause and prejudice standard to excuse procedural default. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2646, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (citing Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. at 486, 73 S.Ct. at 422). 14 Although several circuits have acknowledged that such interference by officials would be a basis for excusing exhaustion of state remedies, see Litchfield v. Tinsley, 281 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir.1960), State v. Gladden, 240 F.2d 910, 911-12 (9th Cir.1957), we have found only one case where a federal court actually proceeded to consider the merits of a state prisoner's unexhausted claim after finding that it was the policy of the State administrative authorities to refuse prisoners the right to send petitions to any court. United States ex rel. Bongiorno v. Ragen, 54 F.Supp. 973, 976 (N.D.Ill.1944), aff'd, 146 F.2d 349 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 865, 65 S.Ct. 1194, 89 L.Ed. 1985 (1945). We agree that if a prisoner could establish that the activities of the state authorities made the prisoner's resort to the state procedures in effect unavailable, exhaustion would be excused. 15 Mayberry's petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserts that he did not appeal from the denial of his petition to lift the non pros judgment because Prison officials obstructed and prevented me from filing appeal briefs and held me incommunicado, and stole my records and files while transferring me from one solitary confinement cell to another all over Pennsylvania. App. at 9. In the post-conviction petition, which the Commonwealth contends was never filed in state court, Mayberry alleges that The authorities at the state prison at Huntingdon obstruct me in my right to appeal my convictions by holding me incommunicado from my attorney, withholding my personal legal papers and correspondence. App. at 171. Mayberry's petition for habeas corpus alleges as a ground for relief denial of my right to due process of law by state officials obstruction of my right to appeal as set forth in my post-conviction petition. App. at 10. Mayberry argued in his Memorandum of Law filed in support of his petition filed in the district court that his direct appeal was obstructed by the prison authorities holding [me] incommunicado and denying [me my] right of access to the courts. App. at 180. Similarly, Mayberry alleged in his motion for discovery, not ruled on by the district court, that the prison authorities at the Western Penitentiary, the State Prison at Huntingdon, the State Prison at Dallas, ... have obstructed petitioner's right of appeal. App. at 193. In response to the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss Mayberry's petition as a delayed petition under Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus cases, Mayberry pointed to the action of the prison authorities at Western Penitentiary and in the Bureau of Correction of Pa., in confiscating my legal papers and law books, holding me incommunicado, denying me access to the courts, transferring me from one solitary confinement cell to another in prisons all over Pennsylvania, and stealing my records and files. App. at 38. 3