Richard Lee Davidson & Walter Vernon Thomas v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, & Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard Lee Davidson & Walter Vernon Thomas v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, & Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1972 · …while the federal constitutional question which he presents in this federal habeas proceeding may not be available to him on his state appeal, that appeal may result in reversal on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question. ✓
22 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (HC) Jones v. Hill (caed, 2020-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Jones v. Hill
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 As the Sherwood court explained: 7 When, as in the present case, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the 8 outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been 9 finally settled in the state courts. 10 As we explained in Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1969), even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas 11 corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armando Lopez v. Stu Sherman
C.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
This is because, “even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.” Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (citing Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donald O. Coe v. Otis Thurman, Warden
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
The reason for such a rule is that “even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habe-as corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.” Id. (citing Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir.1969)); see also Daniels v. Nelson, 415 F.2d 323 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 994 , 90 S.Ct. 494 , 24 L.Ed.2d 459 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sherwood v. Tomkins
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
When, as in the present case, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts. 2 9 As we explained in Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir.1969), even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner's conviction on some other…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sherwood v. Tomkins
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
When, as in the present case, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts. 2 As we explained in Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir.1969), even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on some other…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tippett v. Nelson
C.D. Cal. · 1971 · confidence medium
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 415-422 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Lindsey v. Craven, 427 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1970); Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Manson v. Pitchess
C.D. Cal. · 1970 · confidence medium
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 438-440 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (C.A.9 1969); and Nash v. United States, 342 F.2d 366, 367 (C.A. 5 1965).
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. Williams
D. Nev. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. 17 Klinger, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited "see" David Piercy v. Robert F. Parratt, Warden
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Lee DAVIDSON and Walter Vernon Thomas, Appellants,
v.
Warden J. H. KLINGER, California Men’s Colony, and Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison, Appellees
22563_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 9, 1969.
411 F.2d 746
Joseph L. Armijo, Jr. (argued), Torrance, Cal., for appellant., Ronald M. George (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Hamley, Browning, Powell.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In this habeas proceeding appellants ask a federal court to set aside their state criminal convictions which are still pending on appeal in a state appellate court.

While the federal constitutional question which they present in this federal habeas proceeding may not be available to them on their state appeal, that appeal may result in reversal on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.

Moreover, if the federal question is not available to appellants on the pending state appeal, it may be available to them in state post-conviction proceedings instituted after disposition of that appeal. The fact that appellants’ state post-conviction proceedings, instituted pending the state appeal, resulted in the denial of relief, is not dispositive as to the availability of a state post-conviction remedy after the state appellate court has acted upon the appeal.

Appellants have not exhausted their available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1964); Christiansen v. O’Con-nor, 9 Cir., 378 F.2d 364. On this ground, and without prejudice to appellants’ right to raise a constitutional question in a federal court at the proper time, the order denying the application is

Affirmed.