Court Opinion

ID: 9473448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:30:16.185739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:32.311491
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge, concurring, with whom HUG, Circuit Judge, joins:
Austad was represented by counsel. We do not have before us a case involving a pro se litigant, which might require that the district court construe section 2254(d) less strictly against the petitioner and further consider possible constitutional violations as suggested by Judge Alarcon. Cf. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (holding pro se plaintiff to less stringent standards of pleading than plaintiff represented by counsel); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.) (Haines rule applies to pro se habeas petitions), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 137, 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). As illustrated by the array of hypothetical considerations ruled on by the majority in footnote 4, appropriate judicial restraint dictates that we reserve deciding the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in cases involving pro se litigants until presented with a specific controversy. With this limitation I concur in Judge Poole’s opinion.