Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Bruce L. Franzen v. Brinkman, Warden

877 F.2d 26

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-06-08
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding that errors in the PCR process do not represent an attack on the 24 constitutionality of the prisoner’s detention
  • agreeing with the majority view and holding that “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings”
  • dismissing habeas petition alleging that errors in state postconviction proceeding violated due process rights, but noting that “dismissal would not prejudice [defendant’s] ability to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”
  • “A [habeas corpus] petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review 4 process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.”
  • “A [habeas corpus] 13 petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through 14 habeas corpus proceedings.”
  • “a petition alleging 13 errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas 14 15 corpus proceedings”
  • “[A] petition alleging errors in the state 18 post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus 19 proceedings.”
  • “[A] petition alleging errors in 9 the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through [federal] habeas corpus 10 proceedings.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bruce L. Franzen v. Brinkman, Warden. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
170 opinions
FRANZEN v. BRINKMAN,877 F.2d 26(9th Cir. 1989)
BRUCE L. FRANZEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. BRINKMAN, WARDEN, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 88-2618.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 1989.fn*
Decided June 8, 1989.
Bruce L. Franzen, Indian Springs, Nev., pro se.

No appearance for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Before BROWNING, HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant Franzen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below, claiming the Nevada State District Court's delay of over a year in deciding his petition for state post-conviction relief violated his due process rights. The United States District Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the ground that petitioner's assertions of error in the state post-conviction proceeding do not represent an attack on the prisoner's detention and therefore are not proper grounds for habeas relief. The district court noted the habeas dismissal would not prejudice Franzen's ability to bring a claim under42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[2] A habeas petition must allege the petitioner's detention violates the constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty.28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);Rose v. Hodges,423 U.S. 19, 21, 96 S.Ct. 175, 177, 46 L.Ed.2d 162 (1975) (per curiam). Whether errors in a state post-conviction review proceeding are addressable through federal habeas corpus is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Four circuits have held they are not.1Only one circuit has held to the contrary.Dickerson v. Walsh,750 F.2d 150, 153-54 (1st Cir. 1984).

[3] We join the majority and affirm the district court's holding that a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.

[4] AFFIRMED.Page 27
  1. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). ↩
  2. See Hopkinson v. Shillinger,866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir. 1989);Millard v. Lynaugh,810 F.2d 1403, 1410 (5th Cir. 1987);Kirby v. Dutton,794 F.2d 245, 247-48 (6th Cir. 1986);Mitchell v. Wyrick,727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam);see also United States ex rel. Curtis v.Illinois,521 F.2d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 1975) (dicta). ↩