Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, & State of Alaska, 469 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, & State of Alaska, 469 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney (ca9, 1991-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Fritz v. Spalding, 682 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir.1982); Griggs v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, 469 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Hubert M. Morris v. D. W. Wyrick, Warden
8th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Griggs v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, 469 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward GRIGGS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE STATE JAIL, and State of Alaska, Respondents-Appellees
72-1726.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 7, 1972.
469 F.2d 87
H. John DeNault, III, John S. Hed-land, of Rice, Hoppner, Blair & Hed-land, Michael L. Rubinstein, Anchorage, Alaska, for petitioner-appellant., Stephen G. Dunning, Asst. Dist. Atty. (argued), Seaborn J. Buckalew, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Alaska, John E. Havelock, Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Alaska, for respondents-appellees.
Merrill, Duniway, Trask.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM :

Griggs appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus which he sought to prevent his extradition from Alaska to California. The sole issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3).

Griggs alleged in his petition that a six-month delay in extradition denied him due process of law, and now contends that the state court hearing did not adequately develop the facts material to this issue. However, the facts at the state court hearing were not in dispute, and Griggs did not allege any additional facts in his federal petition indicating that he was prejudiced by the delay. Cf. United States v. Marion, 1971, 404 U.S. 307, 325-326. In such circumstances, the district court was justified in concluding that an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose. Rainsberger v. Fogliani, 9 Cir., 380 F.2d 783, 785.

Moreover, Griggs’ counsel, in the state proceeding, specifically agreed to the state court’s factual findings and declined an opportunity to request additional findings. See Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 317, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 770.

Affirmed.