# Albert Moore v. John Deyoung, Warden, Passaic County Jail, and Frank Davenport, Sheriff

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 8, 1975 · 515 F.2d 437

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461707

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert MOORE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John DeYOUNG, Warden, Passaic County Jail, and Frank Davenport, Sheriff, Respondents-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** April 8, 1975
- **Citations:** 515 F.2d 437; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Seitz
- **Judges:** Seitz, Al-Disert, Garth
- **Cited by:** 395 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the alleged denial of petitioner’s right to a speedy trial does not constitute a “per se extraordinary circumstance” as to require federal intervention prior to exhaustion of state court remedies and explaining that the petitioner would have “an opportunity to rai…
- stating that speedy trial issues require state exhaustion before there can be federal habeas consideration, unless the petitioner can demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that would obviate the exhaustion requirement
- explaining a federal court should not exercise habeas “jurisdiction without exhaustion . . . at the pre-trial stage unless extraordinary circumstances are present”; otherwise, the petitioner must exhaust state remedies and make a special showing of the need for adjudicationbef…
- holding that the pe- titioner’s “claim of alleged denial of the right to a speedy trial [by the state court] does not fall within the extraordinary circum- stances envisioned in Younger”
- holding that the petitioner’s “claim of alleged denial of the right to a speedy trial [by the state court] does not fall within the extraordinary circumstances envisioned in Younger”

## Opinion text

SEITZ, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result. The emphasis by the Supreme Court in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973), on the fact that the petitioner there did not seek to abort a state proceeding compels me to conclude that where, as here, a “derailment of a pending state proceeding” is sought, intervention by a federal court cannot be permitted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461707. Public record. Not legal advice.