METHENY v. HAMBY
Annotate this Case
488 U.S. 913 (1988)
U.S. Supreme Court
METHENY v. HAMBY , 488 U.S. 913 (1988)
488 U.S. 913
Douglas Vincent METHENY
M.C. HAMBY, Warden, et al. No. 87-6703.
Supreme Court of the United States October 17, 1988
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice WHITE, dissenting.
This case and one other in which the Court denies certiorari today- Bryant v. United States, 488 U.S. 916 present the question whether violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) are cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
The IAD question is one that has divided the Courts of Appeals. Most of the Circuits have held that violations of the IAD, without more, do not make out a claim for relief under either 2254 or 2255.1 In this case, the Sixth Circuit found that petitioner could not obtain habeas relief for an IAD violation in a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. 2254; [ Metheny v. Hamby 488 U.S. 913 (1988) ][913-Continued.]
in the other case disposed of today, Bryant, supra, the Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion with respect to a 2255 action. This majority position among the Courts of Appeals, however, has been rejected by at least two Circuits, with a third also somewhat in disagreement. [Footnote 2] This issue has been presented to the Court for its consideration on several occasions in the past; the Court has, unfortunately, refused to resolve this persistent conflict among the lower federal courts. See, e.g ., Haskins v. Virginia, 484 U.S. 1037 (1988 ) (WHITE, J., dissenting); Kerr v. Finkbeiner, 474 U.S. 929 (1985) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
Once again, I dissent from this Court's denial of review on this question. There is nothing to commend having habeas corpus
available in some Circuits and not in others. I would grant certiorari in this case to resolve the split of authority among the Courts of Appeals.
These two IAD cases, however, are not the only two presenting conflicts among the courts over the interpretation of federal statutes (or constitutional provisions), on which the Court has denied review already this Term. In 14 other cases this Term, the Court has declined to review judgments which created or exacerbated existing splits in authority among the state and/or federal courts. See, e.g., Texas v. Modgling, 488 U.S. 898; Boyle v. Illinois, 488 U.S. 898; Lauritzen v. McLaughlin, 488 U.S. 898, 109 S. Ct. 243; Cleveland Newspaper Guild v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 488 U.S. 899; Hartenstine v. Superior Court, 488 U.S. 899; Young v. Langley, 488 U.S. 898; Kahn v. Avnet, Inc., 488 U.S. 898; Feaster v. United States, 488 U.S. 898; Gruenholz v. United States, 488 U.S. 898; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Moritz, 488 U.S. 899; Kreisher v. Mobile Oil Corp., 488 U.S. 899; Robinson v. Connecticut, 488 U.S. 899; Stamler v. Zamboni, 488 U.S. 899; and Torres- Arboledo v. Florida, 488 U.S. 901. I noted my dissent from the denial of review in all of these cases. Most of them present questions of the proper interpretation of federal statutes, and a few involve questions of constitutional interpretation. These questions concern issues that have divided the Courts of Appeals (or, in some instances, the state courts), and require our attention when it is so apparent that some persons are being protected or being sanctioned by the federal law and others are not. I also note that the Court granted certiorari (or noted probable jurisdiction) so far this Term in at least 12 cases which, like these, raise questions of federal statutory interpretation that had divided the lower courts. See, e.g., Lorance v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 488 U.S. 887; Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 488 U.S. 815; California v. ARC America Corp., 488 U.S. 814d 29; Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ticktin, 488 U.S. 815, 109 S. Ct. 52; Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 488 U.S. 815; Neitzke v. Williams, 488 U.S. 816d 32; Finley v. United States, 488 U.S. 815; Hardin v. Straub, 488 U.S. 887; Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. [488 U.S. 913 , 915]