Court Opinion

ID: 9445798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:38:22.47655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:24.714304
License: Public Domain

HINCKS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached and in all that is said in support of that decision. I disagree with Judge MEDINA’S opinion only in so far as it is suggested in the final paragraph thereof that it was improper for the judge below to consider whether the application for the writ sufficiently stated a substantive ground for its issue. It is my opinion that when an application for the writ by a state prisoner fails to show an exhaustion of state court remedies and also fails sufficiently to show a federal ground for the issue of the writ, the judge to whom it is referred under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2243 may properly deny the application on either ground or both grounds. See Thomas v. Teets, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 236, at page 240, certiorari denied Teets v. Thomas, 346 U.S. 910, 74 S.Ct. 240, 98 L.Ed. 407. Here, in my opinion, the record supported the denial on the merits, i. e., for lack of sufficient showing of a federal ground, as well as on the ground that state court remedies had not been exhausted.