Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America Ex Rel. Patrick J. Huffman, Appellant, v. the Commonwealth Court of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania et al
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 453 F.2d 1254
Submitted Nov. 15, 1971.Decided Jan. 3, 1972
Patrick J. Huffman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Peter W. Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., (Leonard Packel, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GANEY, ADAMS and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner in this application for habeas corpus seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 61 P.S. Sec. 331.21a, which confers on the Board of Parole of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania authority to recommit a convicted parole violator to serve the remainder of his sentence without credit for the time spent on parole.1
The district court did not reach the merits of petitioner's contentions. It held that petitioner had not exhausted state remedies since he had not filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. Sec. 1180-5, in the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the County in which he was sentenced. Petitioner was sentenced in Allegheny County; he sought relief in the Commonwealth Court in Dauphin County.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(c),
An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
Petitioner has neither filed in the proper court under 19 P.S. Sec. 1180-5, nor pursued an appeal to the highest court in the state. He has clearly not exhausted his state remedies.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
The constitutionality of this Section has previously been affirmed. United States ex rel. Lyle v. Maroney, 260 F.Supp. 689 (W.D.Pa.1966), cert. den. Lyle v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 998, 87 S.Ct. 1319, 18 L.Ed.2d 347 (1966)