Rose v. Lundy - 455 U.S. 509, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982)

Rule:

Because a total exhaustion rule promotes comity and does not unreasonably impair the prisoner's right to relief, a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims.

Facts:

Respondent, Noah Lundy, whose conviction and imprisonment on charges of rape and crime against nature were affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (521 SW2d 591) was denied review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Respondent filed an unsuccessful petition for post-conviction relief in the Knox County Criminal Court. Respondent subsequently filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 USCS 2254, alleging four specified grounds for relief. The District Court, although concluding that it could not consider two of the claims because the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies for those grounds, granted the writ. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the District Court properly found that the respondent’s constitutional rights had been seriously impaired and specifically rejecting the state's argument that the District Court should have dismissed the petition because it included both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Certiorari was granted. 

Issue:

Should the district court have dismissed the petition because it included both exhausted and unexhausted claims? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Because a total exhaustion rule promoted comity and did not unreasonably impair the respondent's right to relief, a district court was required to dismiss petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. Strict enforcement of the exhaustion requirement would encourage habeas petitioners to exhaust all of their claims in state court and to present the federal court with a single habeas petition. Thus, it was necessary for a district court to dismiss mixed petitions, leaving the respondent with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court.