recognizing that abuse of the writ does not arise when there has not been a "determination on the merits” or where “there has been an intervening change in the law”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that abuse of the writ does not arise when there has not been a "determination on the merits” or where “there has been an intervening change in the law”
- no determination on the merits because court neither conducted evidentiary hearing nor reviewed files and records in the case
- “we do not see how the existence of a false police report, sitting in a drawer in a police station, by itself deprives a person of a right secured by the Constitution or laws. . .The focus. . .ordinarily should be on the consequences, if any, not on the mere existence of the report”
- “The doctrine of abuse of the writ has developed as a result of the familiar rule of law that a denial of an application for habeas corpus is not res judicata with respect to subsequent applications.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LEWIS R. MORGAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion vacating the district court’s order dismissing the appellant’s petitions. I would affirm the order of the district court. The court below found there was an intentional, knowing and unequivocal relinquishment of a known right which constituted a waiver of federal habeas corpus review. Under the evidence, that there was a waiver and an abandonment is established beyond any doubt. Seeking another stay and consideration of substantively identical successive petitions constitutes an abuse of the writ as defined by Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 . I agree with the district court order that there must be an end to litigation and that such frustration of the legal processes should not be allowed to continue.