Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Swanson v. DeSantis (ca6, 2010-06-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swanson v. DeSantis
6th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
If the district court grants the writ on one claim without reaching a different, unexhausted claim in the petition, we may review that order as a “final decision[ ]” — whether because, as required in some circuits, the district court signs off on the finality of the ruling under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Foxworth v. Maloney, 515 F.3d 1 , 3 n. 1 (1st Cir.2008) (collecting eases), or because, as may be the case in other circuits, the order may be reviewed in the ordinary course under § 1291, see id., cf. Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45, 46 (6th Cir.1985) (per c…
discussed Cited "see" Mitchell Thomas Blazak, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. James R. Ricketts, Donald Wawrzaszek, Respondents-Appellants-Cross-Appellees (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45 (6th Cir.1985); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Allen
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The court held that no Rule 54(b) certification was necessary because "[t]o delay an appeal from an order granting or denying [habeas] relief pending disposition of another [unrelated] claim, ... conflicts with the emphasis on prompt decision." Id. at 934; see also Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45, 46 (6th Cir.1985) (following Stachulak ). 7 We agree.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jerry Lynn Young v. Robert Herring, Lee County Sheriff, and Donald A. Cabana, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 523, 525 (11th Cir.1985); see also Miller v. Misfud, 762 F.2d 45 (6th Cir.1985) (Rule 54(b) does not apply to proceedings in which habeas and non-habeas claims are joined); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roger Miller
v.
William A. Misfud, Chief of Dept. Of Probation Services for Franklin County Muni. Court, City of Whitehall Ohio Ted Zwayer, City Attorney
84-3937.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 14, 1985.
762 F.2d 45
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

762 F.2d 45

Roger MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William A. MISFUD, Chief of Dept. of Probation Services For
Franklin County Muni. Court, City of Whitehall
Ohio; Ted Zwayer, City Attorney,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 84-3937.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

May 14, 1985.

George C. Rogers, Rogers & Godbey Co., LPA, Toledo, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant.

Ronald W. Routson, Woods, Bryan, Woods & Watson, Nashville, Tenn., for amicus curiae.

Craig B. Paynter, Columbus, Ohio, for respondent-appellee Misfud.

Kevin P. Durkin, Columbus, Ohio, for respondents-appellees Whitehall and Zwayer.

Before KEITH, MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

This matter is before the Court upon respondent-appellee Misfud's motion to dismiss and petitioner-appellant's responsive memorandum.

2

Petitioner Miller filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 which sought to enjoin the city of Whitehall, Ohio from enforcing its ordinances prohibiting the sale of drug paraphernalia. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied and he filed the instant appeal on November 15, 1984. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner dismissed his civil rights claim without prejudice; he did not file a new notice of appeal. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

3

In United States ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin, 520 F.2d 931 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 1419, 47 L.Ed.2d 354 (1976), the Seventh Circuit held that the failure of an appellant to procure Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification did not prevent that court from exercising jurisdiction over the appeal from the disposition of the habeas claim despite the pendency in the district court of another claim. The court reasoned that habeas corpus is intended to be " 'a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints.' To delay an appeal from an order granting or denying such relief pending disposition of another claim ... conflicts with the emphasis on prompt decision." Id. at 934 (quoting Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 401-402, 83 S.Ct. 822, 828-829, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)). We agree with the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit and we now follow Stachulak.

4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss be and hereby is denied.

5

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT.