Peter M. Gatlin v. M.K. Madding, Warden Attorney General of the State of California People of the State of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that California requires presentation of claim to California Supreme 21 Court through petition for discretionary review in order to exhaust state remedies
• concluding that under California appellate review procedure, petitioner was required to exhaust his habeas claims in a petition for review to the California Supreme Court
• holding that California requires presentation of claim to California Supreme Court through 12 petition for discretionary review in order to exhaust state remedies
• concluding that under California appellate review procedure, petitioner was required to exhaust his habeas claims in petition for review with the California Supreme Court
• acknowledging that pursuant to § 2254(b)(2) a court may deny a habeas petition by reaching the merits of unexhausted claims, but explaining it is not required to do so
• applying 26 27 1(...continued) 28 cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 3 1 || O'Sullivan to California

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).