Court Opinion

ID: 9448160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:24:38.890746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:18.827933
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The decision in this case overrules United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden, 3 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 615, sub silentio, for here, as the majority opinion points out, “there has not yet been such an exhaustion of state remedies as Section 2254 of Title 28 U.S.C. requires before a federal court shall discharge a state prisoner pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus”. I would vacate the judgment and would remand with the direction to the court below to allow the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to exhaust his state remedies, retaining jurisdiction and staying the execution of the state sentence in the meantime. Comity between the state and federal processes requires this result.