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 Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

    I join the Court’s opinion with one reservation, not doctrinal but practical. Instead of conditioning stay-and-abeyance on “good cause” for delay, ante, at 7, I would simply hold the order unavailable on a demonstration of “intentionally dilatory litigation tactics,” ante, at 8. The trickiness of some exhaustion determinations promises to infect issues of good cause when a court finds a failure to exhaust; pro se petitioners (as most habeas petitioners are) do not come well trained to address such matters. I fear that threshold enquiries into good cause will give the district courts too much trouble to be worth the time; far better to wait for the alarm to sound when there is some indication that a petitioner is gaming the system.