Is there a case cite where a pro se litigant filed for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court to overturn an Oregon court decision on judicial disqualification?

Answer 1

An extensive database search of petitions and cases reviewed by the SCOTUS revealed no documents that met all of the following criteria:

* Petition to US Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari * Supreme Court of Oregon or Oregon Supreme Court or US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit * Appellant or Petitioner pro se * Judicial disqualification or recusal or recuse The closest match was Baldwin v. Reese, 541 US 27 (2004), certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (282 F.3d 1184).

Baldwin v. Reese (2004)

Michael Reese was convicted of kidnapping and attempted sodomy in the state of Oregon and sentenced to 33 years in prison. He received court-appointed counsel who unsuccessfully filed appeals and requests for post-conviction relief through the state courts.

After the lower courts denied him collateral relief, Reese filed a pro se petition for review in the Oregon Supreme Court, claiming, among other things, "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel," "imprisonment in violation of State law," and that his trial counsel's conduct had "violated several provisions of the Federal Constitution." The Oregon Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Reese next filed a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. The Court held that he had not "fairly presented" his claim of ineffective counsel in the state judiciary, and thus did not yet have standing in the federal courts.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit reversed the district court ruling, declaring that Reese had, indeed, "fairly presented" his claim, despite expressing an opinion that the brief had been inadequately prepared, because the Oregon Supreme Court had "the opportunity to read . . . the lower [Oregon] court decision claimed to be in error before deciding whether to grant discretionary review."

George Baldwin, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it granted to determine whether the 9th Circuit had correctly interpreted the "fair presentation" requirement. The Rehnquist Court voted to reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling, 8-1, with Justice Stevens dissenting. Justice Breyer delivered the majority opinion, which began with an acknowledgment that Reese's petition, by itself, would not have alerted the Oregon Supreme Court to the federal nature of his claim. He went on to address the error in the 9th Circuit's reasoning:

"We recognize that the justices of the Oregon Supreme Court did have an "opportunity" to read the lower court opinions in Reese's case. That opportunity means that the judges could have read them. But to say that a petitioner "fairly presents" a federal claim when an appellate judge can discover that claim only by reading lower court opinions in the case is to say that those judges must read the lower court opinions--for otherwise they would forfeit the State's opportunity to decide that federal claim in the first instance. In our view, federal habeas corpus law does not impose such a requirement." and "For these reasons, we believe that the requirement imposed by the Ninth Circuit would unjustifiably undercut the considerations of federal-state comity that the exhaustion requirement seeks to promote. We consequently hold that ordinarily a state prisoner does not "fairly present" a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion in the case, that does so." The Supreme Court declined to address the case on its merits, instead reversing and remanding to the lower courts. * Attorney Dennis Balske argued the cause for Reese.