Edwin L. Moore v. Captain Schoeman Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the district court’s “hybrid” disposition of fully unexhausted habeas petition—dismissing one claim on the merits and dismissing the other without prejudice—was “unauthorized by § 2254(b)(2)”
• finding that the district court’s “hybrid” disposition of fully unexhausted habeas petition—dismissing one claim on the merits and dismissing the other without prejudice—was “unauthorized by § 2254(b)(2)”
• explaining that “a district court faced with a habeas petition containing unexhausted claims may either (1) dismiss the entire petition without prejudice in order to permit exhaustion of state remedies, or (2) deny the entire petition on the merits”
• finding that district court’s “hybrid” disposition of fully unexhausted unexhausted petitions on various grounds including jurisdiction and the interests of comity and justice. See, e.g., Powers v. Bartlett, No. 08 CIV. 7733DC, 2009 WL 980266, at (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2009
• explaining § 2254(b)(2) permits “deny[ing] the entire petition on the merits,” but not a “hybrid approach”
• explaining § 2254(b)(2) permits “deny[ing] the entire petition on the merits,” but not a “hybrid approach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).