Christy v. Horn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a habeas petition filed after a prior one was dismissed without prejudice is considered the petitioner's first habeas petition
• holding that the concerns of finality and comity underlying the abuse of the writ doctrine \are not implicated when a petition is filed after a prior petition is dismissed for lack of exhaustion\
• stating that a § 2254 petition filed after a previously submitted petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a second or successive petition under AEDPA
• noting that “in rare cases exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency may exist which permit a federal court to entertain an unexhausted claim,” such as when state remedies are futile, inadequate, or incapable of providing a full and fair adjudication of federal claims
• affirming district court’s decision to dismiss mixed petition without prejudice, rather than hold it in abeyance
• “While the AEDPA requires this procedure for second or successive application, it does not define what it is meant by ‘second’ or ‘successive.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).