"Exhaustion of remedies" requires petition for further review

Samar Akins v. Michael L. Kenney (Akins II) U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 02-1913 District of Nebraska; initial opinion Akins v. Kenney, 341 F.3d 681 (8th Cir.2003)(Akins I) Remanded opinion: Rhines v. Weber U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 02-2990 District of South Dakota8th circuit holds on remand from United States Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005) that "exhaustion of remedies" rule (Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982)requires habeas applicant to seek further review to Nebraska Supreme Court. The Supreme Court wishes to discourage routine stay orders from the Federal District Courts where prisoners have presented to Federal Court unexhausted post-conviction claims. the 8th Circ remands to the District Court to determine whether Akins unexhausted claims meet narrow stay standards of merit, good cause for not exhausting claims, and that the filing is not abusive. Rhines faces a smilar ruling before the South Dakota Federal District Court., whether there is good cause to have allowed the Judge to put his federal habeas petiotio n on hold rather than dismissing it. He was sentenced to death for murdering a co-worker in a doghnut shop in 1992.