Also known as: one full round of appellate review · exhaustion · state remedies exhaustion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural requirement in federal habeas corpus litigation obligating a state prisoner to present federal constitutional claims to the state's highest court through its normal direct appeal channels, including any available discretionary review, before filing a petition in federal court.
Oliver Okeke obtained a judgment against a partnership but the partnership assets proved insufficient. He petitioned the state supreme court for permission to execute against a partner's personal assets after the trial court denied relief. The federal habeas court later dismissed his related claim because he had not completed one full round of the state's appellate process on the underlying constitutional issue.
Octavia Okonkwo, a general partner in a limited partnership, faced a judgment creditor seeking to levy on her personal assets. She appealed the trial court's permission order through the state's intermediate appellate court but skipped discretionary review by the state supreme court. Her subsequent federal habeas petition was denied for failure to invoke one full round of the state's established appellate review process.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orion Orlov was convicted in state court and lost his direct appeal in the intermediate appellate court. He declined to seek discretionary review from the state supreme court on his due process claim. The federal court dismissed his habeas petition because he had not completed one full round of the state's established appellate review process.
Opal Okoro lost her state trial and direct appeal but never raised an ineffective assistance claim in any state appellate proceeding. She filed a federal habeas petition alleging counsel error at sentencing. The district court dismissed the petition because she had not given the state one full round of its established appellate review process on that claim.
Odette Orozco pursued her direct appeal to the state supreme court but did not file a separate state post-conviction petition raising a new constitutional issue. The federal habeas court held that she had satisfied the exhaustion requirement by completing one full round of the state's established appellate review process and need not pursue extraordinary remedies.
Oriana Oberman raised her coerced confession claim in her state trial court and pursued it through the intermediate appellate court and the state supreme court on direct appeal. Because she had invoked one full round of the state's established appellate review process, the federal habeas court reached the merits of her claim rather than dismissing for non-exhaustion.
Yes. When the state's appellate process includes discretionary review by the state supreme court, a petitioner must pursue this remedy before seeking relief in federal court. The requirement ensures the state has one full opportunity to rule on the federal claim through its normal channels.
No. A petitioner need only give the state system a single opportunity to rule on the claim through direct appeal. Collateral remedies are not required when they are alternatives to the standard review process.
The federal habeas court will dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust. The petitioner must present the claim to the state's highest court through the normal appellate process before federal review is available.
…deprives the District Court of jurisdiction under this provision. We have previously held that the doctrine of administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional, but is a matter of judicial discretion. Weinberger v. Salfi , 422 U.S. 749, 765-767 (1975). In Salfi , we considered a constitutional challenge to a…