Court Opinion

ID: 9445627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:34:46.157165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:21.267721
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially) .
If appellee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus presents a federal question I agree that he must first exhaust his state remedies. His earlier effort in that direction was abortive for he did not comply with Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, and he allowed the time to seek certiorari to expire. That mistake on his part does not forever foreclose him from relief from a void judgment, nor does it excuse him from further attempts to seek relief in the state courts, for I assume that in California, as in most states, a denial of habeas corpus is not res judicata and does not, per se, prohibit another try.1
Therefore, since a chance for state relief is still open to appellee, if he is still confined in violation of federal constitutional right, he must make another try for that relief before he goes to the federal court.
I should add, however, that I cannot perceive that appellee’s petition presented any question of federal rights.

. If the California rule were like that in some states, and one denial foreclosed any other applications, then there would now be “an absence of available State correetive process” under Title 28, § 2254. Cf. Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. 235, 238, 69 S.Ct. 1073, 93 L.Ed. 1333.