skip navigation
search

RHINES V. WEBER (03-9046) 544 U.S. 269 (2005)
346 F.3d 799, vacated and remanded.
Syllabus
 
Opinion
[ O’Connor ]
Concurrence
[ Stevens ]
Concurrence
[ Souter ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

544 U.S. ____ (2005)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 03—9046

CHARLES RUSSELL RHINES, PETITIONER v.
DOUGLAS WEBER, WARDEN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[March 30, 2005]

    Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and
Justice Breyer join, concurring.

    While I join the Court's opinion, I do so on the understanding that its reference to “good cause” for failing to exhaust state remedies more promptly, ante, at 7, is not intended to impose the sort of strict and inflexible requirement that would “ ‘trap the unwary pro se prisoner.’ Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000).