Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Baldwin v. Reese
124 S. Ct. 1347
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2004-03-02
- Topic
- general
holding that, ordinarily, for a petitioner to “fairly present” federal claims to a state court, the federal issues must be clearly identified in the state court brief | holding that "ordinarily a state prisoner does not 'fairly present' a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document | holding that a petition must “have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim” (emphasis added) | holding that a petition must "have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim” (emphasis added) | holding that a prisoner must present his or her claim in “a petition or a brief (or a similar document)” in order to exhaust | holding that a prisoner must present his or her claim in “a petition or a brief (or a similar document)” in order to exhaust | holding that to be fairly presented, a claim must include 5 a statement of the operative facts and the specific federal legal theory | holding that a federal claim is “fairly presented” to the state court when the petitioner includes it in a petition or brief before that court | holding that a petitioner "must fairly present his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review)” to properly preserve it for federal habeas review | holding that “ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document | holding that, ordinar- ily, for a petitioner to “fairly present” federal claims to a state court, the federal issues must be clearly identified in the state court brief | holding that a necessary component of the exhaustion doctrine is that the federal claim must be “fairly present[ed]” to the State courts prior to seeking relief in the federal courts | holding that a petitioner must fairly present his claim to each appropriate state court | holding that a necessary component of the exhaustion doctrine is that the federal claim must be “fairly present[ed]” to “each appropriate state court” prior to seeking relief in the federal courts | concluding that a petitioner does not “fairly present” an issue for exhaustion purposes when the appellate judge can only discover the issue by reading a lower court opinion in the case | holding that “ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document | holding that a habeas petitioner must present his claim “to each appropriate 20 state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review)” to 21 meet the exhaustion requirement | holding that “ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document | holding that a petitioner’s failure to identify a federal claim or to cite case law which might alert the state court to the federal nature of a claim is not fair presentation | holding that a petitioner’s failure to identify a federal claim or to cite case law which might alert the state court to the federal nature of a claim is not fair presentation | holding that ordinarily “a 6 state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a 7 petition or a brief (or a similar document | holding that “burden-shifting . . . may violate the due process clause protection” | holding that a prisoner does not fairly present a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or brief, such as a lower court opinion, to find the claim | holding that a claim is not fairly presented if the state court “must read beyond a petition or brief . . . that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim[.]” | holding that under the AEDPA, a petitioner must exhaust available state remedies | holding that under the AEDPA, a petitioner must exhaust available state remedies | hol
Citator
- Cited by
- 1087 opinions
BALDWIN v. REESE,541 U.S. 27(2004)
124 S.Ct. 1347
BALDWIN v. REESE.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 02-964.
Argued December 8, 2003.
Decided March 2, 2004.
(a) Assuming that Reese's petition by itself did not properly alert the State Supreme Court to the federal nature of his claim, Reese failed to meet the "fair presentation" standard. To say that a petitioner "fairly presents" a federal claim when an appellate judge can discover that claim only by reading the lower court opinions is to say that those judgesmustread those opinions — for otherwise they would forfeit the State's opportunity to decide the claim in the first instance. Federal habeas law does not impose such a requirement. That requirement would force state appellate judges to alter their ordinary review practices, since they do not necessarily read lower court opinions in every case. And it would impose a serious burden upon those judges with discretionary review powers, whose heavy workloads would be significantly increased if they had to read through lower court opinions or briefs in every instance. Finally, the requirement is unnecessary toPage 28avoid imposing unreasonable procedural burdens upon state prisoners who may eventually seek federal habeas. A litigant can easily indicate his claim's federal law basis in a petition or brief, for example, by citing to the federal source of law on which he relies or simply labeling the claim "federal." Pp. 30-32.
(b) This Court is not wrong to assume that Reese's petitionby itselffailed to alert the State Supreme Court to his claim's federal nature. He must concede that his petition does not explicitly say that "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" refers to a federal claim, cite any case that might have alerted the court to his claim's alleged federal nature, or even contain a factual description supporting his claim. Reese asserts that the petition nonetheless "fairly presents" a federal "ineffective assistance" claim because (1) "ineffective" is a term of art in Oregon that refers only to federal law claims, and (2) the state-law standards for adjudicating state and federal "inadequate/ineffective appellate assistance" claims are identical. This Court rejects his first argument because he has not demonstrated that state law uses "ineffective assistance" as referring only to a federal-law, rather than a similar state-law, claim. However, Reese's second argument was not addressed by, or presented to, the Ninth Circuit, and first appeared here in Reese's merits brief. Because the issue is complex and lower court consideration would help in its resolution, the Court, without expressing any view on the issue's merits, exercises its Rule 15.2 discretion and deems the argument waived. Pp. 32-34.282 F. 3d 1184, reversed.
I
Michael Reese, the respondent, appealed his state-court kidnaping and attempted sodomy convictions and sentences through Oregon's state court system. He then brought collateral relief proceedings in the state courts (where he was represented by appointed counsel). After the lower courts denied him collateral relief, Reese filed a petition for discretionary review in the Oregon Supreme Court.
The petition made several different legal claims. In relevant part, the petition asserted that Reese had received "ineffective assistance of both trial court and appellate court counsel." App. 47. The petition added that "his imprisonmentPage 30is in violation of [Oregon state law]."Id.,at 48. It said that histrialcounsel's conduct violated several provisions of theFederalConstitution.Ibid.But it did not say that his separateappellate"ineffective assistance" claim violatedfederallaw. The Oregon Supreme Court denied review.
Reese ultimately sought a federal writ of habeas corpus, raising, among other claims, a federal constitutional claim that hisappellatecounsel did not effectively represent him during one of his direct state-court appeals. The Federal District Court held that Reese had not "fairly presented" his federal "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" claim to the higher state courts because his brief in the state appeals court had not indicated that he was complaining about a violation offederallaw.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court.282 F. 3d 1184(2002). Although the majority apparently believed that Reese's petition itself did not alert the Oregon Supreme Court to the federal nature of the appellate "ineffective assistance" claim, it did not find that fact determinative.Id.,at 1193-1194. Rather, it found that Reese had satisfied the "fair presentation" requirement because the justices of the Oregon Supreme Court had had "theopportunityto read . . . the lower [Oregon] court decision claimed to be in error before deciding whether to grant discretionary review."Id.,at 1194 (emphasis added).Had they read the opinion of the lower statetrial court,the majority added, the justices would have, or should have, realized that Reese's claim rested upon federal law.Ibid.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Ninth Circuit has correctly interpreted the "fair presentation" requirement.
II
We begin by assuming that Reese's petition by itself did not properly alert the Oregon Supreme Court to the federal nature of Reese's claim. On that assumption, Reese failedPage 31to meet the "fair presentation" standard, and the Ninth Circuit was wrong to hold the contrary.
We recognize that the justices of the Oregon Supreme Court did have an "opportunity" to read the lower court opinions in Reese's case. That opportunity means that the judgescould haveread them. But to say that a petitioner "fairly presents" a federal claim when an appellate judge can discover that claim only by reading lower court opinions in the case is to say that those judgesmustread the lower court opinions — for otherwise they would forfeit the State's opportunity to decide that federal claim in the first instance. In our view, federal habeas corpus law does not impose such a requirement.
For one thing, the requirement would force state appellate judges to alter their ordinary review practices. Appellate judges, of course, will often read lower court opinions, but they do not necessarily do so in every case. Sometimes an appellate court can decide a legal question on the basis of the briefs alone. That is particularly so where the question at issue is whether to exercise a discretionary power of review,i.e.,whether to review the merits of a lower court decision. In such instances, the nature of the issue may matter more than does the legal validity of the lower court decision. And the nature of the issue alone may lead the court to decide not to hear the case. Indeed, the Oregon Supreme Court is a court with a discretionary power of review. And Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.05(7) (2003) instructs litigants seeking discretionary review to identify clearly in the petition itself the legal questions presented, why those questions have special importance, a short statement of relevant facts, and the reasons for reversal, "including appropriate authorities."
For another thing, the opinion-reading requirement would impose a serious burden upon judges of state appellate courts, particularly those with discretionary review powers. Those courts have heavy workloads, which would be significantlyPage 32increased if their judges had to read through lower court opinions or briefs in every instance. See National Center for State Courts, State Court Caseload Statistics 2002, pp. 106-110 (Table 2) (for example, in 2001, Oregon appellate courts received a total of 5,341 appeals, including 908 petitions for discretionary review to its Supreme Court; California appellate courts received 32,273, including 8,860 discretionary Supreme Court petitions; Louisiana appellate courts received 13,117, including 3,230 discretionary Supreme Court petitions; Illinois appellate courts received 12,411, including 2,325 discretionary Supreme Court petitions).
Finally, we do not find such a requirement necessary to avoid imposing unreasonable procedural burdens upon state prisoners who may eventually seek habeas corpus. A litigant wishing to raise a federal issue can easily indicate the federal law basis for his claim in a state-court petition or brief, for example, by citing in conjunction with the claim the federal source of law on which he relies or a case deciding such a claim on federal grounds, or by simply labeling the claim "federal."
For these reasons, we believe that the requirement imposed by the Ninth Circuit would unjustifiably undercut the considerations of federal-state comity that the exhaustion requirement seeks to promote. We consequently hold that ordinarily a state prisoner does not "fairly present" a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion in the case, that does so.
III
Reese argues in the alternative that it is wrong to assume that his petitionby itselffailed to alert the Oregon Supreme Court to the federal nature of his "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" claim. We do not agree.Page 33
Reese must concede that his petition does not explicitly say that the words "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" refer to a federal claim. The petition refers to provisions of the Federal Constitution in respect tootherclaims but not in respect to this one. The petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim. And the petition does not even contain a factual description supporting the claim. Cf.Grayv.Netherland,518 U.S. 152,163(1996);Duncan,513 U.S., at 366.
Reese asserts that the petition nonetheless "fairly presents" a federal "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" claim for two reasons. First, he says that the word "ineffective" is a term of art in Oregon that refers only to federal-law claims and not to similar state-law claims, which, he adds, in Oregon are solely referred to as "inadequateassistance" claims. And thus the Oregon Supreme Court should have known, from his use of the word "ineffective," that his claim was federal.
Reese, however, has not demonstrated that Oregon law uses the words "ineffective assistance" in the manner he suggests, that is, as referring only to a federal-law claim. See,e.g., Lichauv.Baldwin,166 Ore. App. 411,415,417,999 P. 2d 1207,1210,1211(2000) (using "ineffectiveassistance" to refer to violations of the Oregon Constitution), rev'd in part,333 Ore. 350,39 P. 3d 851(2002). Indeed, Reese's own petition uses both phrases — "ineffective assistance" and "inadequate assistance" — at different points to refer to what is apparently a single claim.
Second, Reese says that in Oregon the standards for adjudicating state and federal "inadequate/ineffective appellate assistance" claims are identical. He adds that, where that identity exists, a petitioner need not indicate a claim's federal nature, because, by raising a state-law claim, he would necessarily "fairly present" the corresponding federal claim.Page 34
However, the Ninth Circuit did not address this argument, and our reading of the briefs filed in the Ninth Circuit leads us to conclude that Reese did not there seek consideration of the argument in that court. Indeed, the argument first made its appearance in this Court in Reese's brief on the merits. Under this Court's Rule 15.2, "a nonjurisdictional argument not raised in a respondent's brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari may be deemed waived."Caterpillar Inc.v.Lewis,519 U.S. 61,75, n. 13 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). This argument falls squarely within the rule. The complex nature of Reese's claim and its broad implications suggest that its consideration by the lower courts would help in its resolution. Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the issue, we exercise our Rule 15.2 discretion and deem the argument waived in this Court. See,e.g., Robertsv.Galen of Va., Inc.,525 U.S. 249,253-254(1999)(per curiam); South Central BellTelephone Co.v.Alabama,526 U.S. 160,171(1999); cf.Sprietsmav.Mercury Marine,537 U.S. 51,56, n. 4 (2002).
For these reasons, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit isReversed.
- Briefs ofamici curiaeurging reversal were filed for the State of Indiana et al. byStephen R. Carter,Attorney General of Indiana, andGary Damon Secrest,Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows:William H. Pryor, Jr.,of Alabama,Bill Lockyerof California,Ken Salazarof Colorado,M. Jane Bradyof Delaware,G. Steven Roweof Maine,Mike McGrathof Montana,Matt McNairof Nebraska,Brian Sandovalof Nevada,WayneStenehjemof North Dakota,Jim Petroof Ohio,W.A. DrewEdmondsonof Oklahoma,D. Michael Fisherof Pennsylvania,Lawrence E. Longof South Dakota,Greg Abbottof Texas,MarkL. Shurtleffof Utah,William Sorrellof Vermont,ChristineO. Gregoireof Washington,Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,of West Virginia, andPatrick J. Crankof Wyoming; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation byKent S. Scheidegger. ↩