HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge.
The relator, presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pa., seeks, by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to test the legality of his restraint by the state authorities.
In his petition, the relator asserts that on February 27, 1967, he filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. (1966), in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County. The relator further asserts that as of October 24, 1967, his petition had not been disposed of, nor had he been given any information as to the status of his petition in spite of repeated inquiries made by him to the Clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions. The relator contends that this alleged failure of the State Court to act on his Post Conviction Hearing Act petition constitutes inordinate delay and a denial to him of due process and the equal protection of the laws. The relator's petition further alleges that the Superior Court of the Commonwealth will not accept his complaint of inordinate delay by the Court of Quarter Sessions, Philadelphia County; hence he has exhausted his state remedies.
I find that the relator has not exhausted his state judicial remedies. It is settled doctrine that federal courts will defer from ruling on the merits of habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners until state courts have been given the opportunity to pass upon these claims. This is not a jurisdictional requirement, but a doctrine based on the principles of comity, and codified in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The doctrine rests on the recognition that state courts as well as the federal courts are bound by the strictures of the United States Constitution, and the assumption that, given the opportunity, the state courts will act promptly to correct possible violations of constitutional rights. In sum, the rule of exhaustion codified in § 2254 "is not one defining power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise of power" Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S. Ct. 442, 446, 83 L. Ed. 455 (1939). But, while redress of constitutional violations is ordinarily to be sought first through the state courts' established procedures, as the Supreme Court has admonished in a recent case:
"Where state procedural snarls or obstacles preclude an effective state remedy against unconstitutional convictions, federal courts have no other choice but to grant relief in a collateral proceeding." Bartone v. United States, 375 U.S. 52, 54, 84 S. Ct. 21, 22, 11 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1963).