United States ex rel. Scarnato v. Fay

4 Citing cases

  1. United States ex Rel. Figueroa v. McMann

    411 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 15 times

    In view of our disposition of the appeal, there is no occasion to consider whether, under the principles announced by a closely divided Court in Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (March 24, 1969), the lower court should have authorized discovery by petitioner. When a state prisoner presents a materially different claim and stronger evidentiary case before the federal court in a habeas corpus petition, and a state forum is available to consider the additional factors and varied claim, the federal court should properly dismiss the petition before it. United States ex rel. Boodie v. Herold, 349 F.2d 372 (2 Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Kessler v. Fay, 232 F. Supp. 139, 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); United States ex rel. Scarnato v. Fay, 347 F.2d 424 (2 Cir. 1965). Nothing in Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41, reversing United States ex rel. Roberts v. LaVallee, 373 F.2d 49 (2 Cir. 1967), requires a different result here.

  2. Grady v. Iowa State Penitentiary

    346 F. Supp. 681 (N.D. Iowa 1972)   Cited 5 times

    Error in discretionary matters by the state court is not a violation of due process. Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541-555, 82 S.Ct. 955, 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1961); American Ry. Express v. Kentucky, 273 U.S. 269, 273, 47 S.Ct. 353, 71 L.Ed. 639 (1927); Hughes v. Heinze, 268 F.2d 864, 869-870 (9th Cir. 1959); United States ex rel. Scarnato v. LaVallee, 206 F. Supp. 365, 367 (N.D.N.Y. 1962), modified on other grounds, United States ex rel. Scarnato v. Fay, 347 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1965). The Court concludes that Grady does not state a cause of action for habeas corpus relief or for any other relief this Court could grant.

  3. Piper v. United States

    306 F. Supp. 1259 (D. Conn. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    This was held to justify dismissal of the petition in favor of resolution by the state court, which had agreed to provide a prompt hearing on the issues as soon as a new coram nobis application was made. See also United States ex rel. Boodie v. Herold, 349 F.2d 372 (2 Cir. 1965) (exhaustion under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 not fulfilled where claims were based on matters not before state court); United States ex rel. Scarnato v. Fay, 347 F.2d 424 (2 Cir. 1965); and United States ex rel. Kessler v. Fay, 232 F. Supp. 139, 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), cited in Figueroa, supra, at 916. Notwithstanding Figueroa, Roberts has been applied in this Circuit to require consideration of an exhausted claim even though an unrelated claim is awaiting adjudication in the state courts and where new grounds urged were not presented to the lower state tribunal by a petition for a rehearing, although they were raised on appeal from the lower tribunal.

  4. United States ex Rel. Siegal v. Follette

    290 F. Supp. 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 469, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1937); United States ex rel. Weiss v. Fay, 232 F. Supp. 912, 914 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541-555, 82 S.Ct. 955, 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1961); American Ry. Express v. Kentucky, supra n. 18, at 273, 47 S.Ct. 355; Hughes v. Heinze, 268 F.2d 864, 869-870 (8th Cir. 1959); United States ex rel. Scarnato v. La Vallee, 206 F. Supp. 365, 367 (N.D.N.Y. 1962), modified on other grounds, U.S. ex rel. Scarnato v. Fay, 347 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1965). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).