Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 F.3d 122

Docket No. 96-2340.

Allen Langley v. State of Iowa

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: September 23, 1997. Filed: October 8, 1997.

This page is marked noindex.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-10-08

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Joubert v. Hopkins · United States v. Aguilar · Joubert v. Hopkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1997-10-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2012

1 district ·

40199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Allen Langley, an Iowa prisoner, appeals the district court's1 grant of summary judgment against him in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Langley challenges the district court's determination that there exists no cause to excuse his procedural default. Specifically, Langley claims that he mailed his habeas petition--which he labeled a "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody, United States District Court"--to the state court, that the state court mailed it to the federal district court rather than filing it as a state post-conviction motion, and that the state court's conduct should excuse his procedural default.

¶2

After de novo review of the record, we agree that Langley's claims are barred from habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Lamp v. Iowa, No. 96-2946, slip op. at 5-7 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 1997). Although sufficient interference by the State may constitute cause in some circumstances, see Joubert v. Hopkins, 75 F.3d 1232, 1242 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 2574 (1996), we conclude this case does not present such a circumstance.

¶3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa

/129/f3d/122 · .json · Public domain