Clements v. Maloney

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that applicants’ reliance on their attorney’s repeated assurances that their case was being pursued for two years after they learned they were subject to orders of removal was reasonable
• holding that claims that were omitted from the ALOFAR were not exhausted
• noting that the district court gave the petitioner an opportunity to voluntarily dismiss his unexhausted claims
• stating that “[t]he Barresi approach to the exhaustion analysis may be incompatible with Baldwin”
• noting that “[i]n Rhines, the Court identified the three prerequisites for the ‘stay and abeyance’ procedure,” i.e., good cause for failure to exhaust, a potentially meritorious unexhausted claim, and lack of indication that petitioner intentionally participated in dilatory litigation tactics
• stating that “the omission of most of [petitioner’s] Appeals Court claims from his ALO-FAR was the result of a strategic decision by [petitioner] and his lawyer and could not constitute good cause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).