Document: 529 U.S. 473120 S.Ct. 1595146 L.Ed.2d 542 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SLACKv.McDANIEL, WARDEN, et al. CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6322. Argued October 4, 1999 Reargued March 29, 2000 Decided April 26, After petitioner Slack was convicted second-degree murder Nevada and his direct appeal unsuccessful, he filed, 1991, federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because wished to litigate claims had not yet presented courts, could do so rule requiring complete exhaustion state remedies, see Rose Lundy, 455 509, filed motion hold abeyance while returned court. Federal District ordered dismissed without prejudice, granting leave file an application renew upon exhausting remedies. unsuccessful postconviction proceedings, anew court 1995, presenting 14 relief. State moved dismiss, arguing that (1) Slack's mixed raising some which courts not, (2) established Ninth Circuit rule, raised 1991 abuse writ. granted State's motion, holding, first, 1995 "[a] second or successive petition," even though prejudice failure exhaust then invoked writ doctrine dismiss petition. dismissal order 1998, after pleading captioned "Notice Appeal." Consistent practice, treated notice certificate probable cause (CPC) version §2253 existed before enactment Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). It denied CPC, concluding would raise substantial issue. likewise permitted dismissing Held: 1. seeks initiate 24, (AEDPA's effective date), right governed requirements now found §2253(c)-which provides, inter alia, such may taken unless circuit Justice judge issues appealability (COA), §2253(c)(1), COA issue only if applicant made showing denial constitutional right, §2253(c)(2)-even district AEDPA's date. argues incorrectly pre-AEDPA statute, §2253(c), controls case because, Lindh Murphy, 521 320, 327, held §2254 amendments governing entitlement relief applied cases In implementing Lindh, must recognized §2554 directed proceedings appellate proceedings. Just applies trial post-AEDPA, initiated post-AEDPA. Although requires appeals apply law reviewing court's ruling commenced there pre-AEDPA, post-AEDPA governs present. While continuation litigation started court, distinct step. E.g., Hohn States, 524 236, 241. Under AEDPA, when filed. Ibid. When Congress instructs statute triggered commencement relevant one sought review two years date, §2253(c) here, COA. should have application. Pp. 4_6. 2. denies on procedural grounds reaching prisoner's underlying claim, (and taken) prisoner shows, least, jurists reason find debatable whether states valid claim correct its ruling. 6_9. (a) rejects contentions that, because provides "substantial right," rulings appealed, can relies setting forth preconditions issuance expressed intention allow error bar vindication rights appeal. This conclusion follows from present provisions, incorporate earlier principles. Except substituting word "constitutional" "federal," codification CPC standard announced Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 894. Williams Taylor, ante, ___. Barefoot, includes reasonable debate (or, matter, agree that) resolved different manner were " `adequate deserve encouragement proceed further.' U.S., 893, n. 4. 6_8. (b) Determining where components, holding. Section 2253 mandates both showings entertain Each component threshold inquiry, dispose fair prompt proceeds first resolve whose answer more apparent record arguments. Resolution allowed encouraged pass question also other ground disposed of. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347. Here, did attempt make instead Court's wrong. does determine required error, neither briefed nor below view rather than COA, standards applied. necessary consider matter any remand further does, however, address conclude incorrect. 8_9. 3. A initial adjudication merits remedies "second successive" term understood context. 9_13. erred contrary. implicates governs. supra. Whether appropriate controlled Rule 9(b) Rules Governing §2254, incorporates prior decisions subject, McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 487, states: "A [alleging new grounds] _ finds assert those constituted writ." petition" phrase art given substance in, e.g., 510, petitions containing exhausted unexhausted claims, contemplated return requisite exhaustion, id., 520_521. Thus, Lundy adjudicated Neither Martinez-Villareal supports contention prisoner, restricted treat subject whatever conditions attaches dismissal. Accordingly, successive. To extent might prisoners repeatedly thereby inject undue delay into collateral process, problem countered States' power impose proper bars courts' broad powers prevent duplicative unnecessary litigation. demonstrated holding otherwise entitled remand. P. 13. Reversed remanded. Kennedy, J., delivered Court, Part I unanimous, II joined Rehnquist, C. O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, JJ., Parts III IV Stevens, Souter, Breyer, JJ. concurring judgment, Souter joined. dissenting part, Opinion NOTICE: formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers are requested notify Decisions, Supreme Washington, D. 20543, typographical errors, corrections goes press. Kennedy Court. 1 We called series regarding corpus, including questions follows: 2 First, (the date AEDPA), (COA) 2253(c). (1994 ed., Supp. III). true 3 Second, 4 Third, do, retain 5 * Petitioner Antonio 1990. His unsuccessful. On November 27, Early proceeding, decided courts. He explained 509 (1982), litigated seeking claims. Without objection State, "without prejudice." order, dated February 19, 1992, stated, "Petitioner all remedies." Director, Nev. Dept. Prisons, CV_N_91_561 (D. Nev.), App. 22. 6 round May 30, 1995. later appointed counsel, directing him amended current December 1997, counsel As ground, argued petition, say not. cited Farmer McDaniel, 98 F.3d 1548 (CA9 1996), contended Circuit, 7 motion. relied left four each having petition; these, concluded, therefore remaining they challenge abusive; contend exhausted. 8 1998. 2253; Appeals CPC. CV_95_194 (CA9, July 7, 197). result, take certiorari. 525 1138 (1999). contends wrong successive." successive, we questions. 9 Before enacted 1948. June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 967. provided final proceeding "unless justice who rendered cause." explain what show obtain Estelle: "a right." 893 (1983)(citation brackets omitted). 10 1996, AEDPA §2253. added subsection (c), provides: 11 "(1) Unless appealability, from_ 12 "(A) detention complained arises out process issued court; 13 "(B) section 2255. "(2) paragraph right. 15 "(3) shall indicate specific satisfy (2)." II). 16 outset pre- 320 (1997), 2254 327. means pre-AEDPA. That position For purposes True, ruling, pre-AEDPA; us. 17 241 (1998); Mackenzie A. Engelhard Sons 266 131 (1924). described "appellate cases." Order Apr. 500 1009 (amendments Appellate Procedure "shall govern thereafter commenced"). Hohn, supra, us (as says has) indication intended tie provisions establishes rules inquiry 248; cf. 2253(c) 18 note our post-Lindh decision arrived same posture case. Like Slack, Brief O. T. 96_8986, pp. 40_44. Though discuss reach resolve, statutory certiorari jurisdiction all. Our disposition today consistent Hohn. appeal, seek 19 applied, Fed. Proc. 22(b); Civ. 8(f); 240. evaluate §2253(c). 20 Citing §2253(c)'s requirement According appealed. view, demonstrate violation Constitution reject interpretation. plays vital role protecting rights. 21 "the meaning words selected; give language ascribed due substitution "constitutional." ___ (2000) (slip op., 11). demonstration ("sum[ming] up" `substantial showing' standard). 22 rejected merits, straightforward: assessment becomes somewhat complicated where, dismisses based grounds. construction gives Congress' conformity showing" adopted AEDPA. plain invoke jurist either further. circumstance, warranted. 23 recognition "Court although properly record, of," 347 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring), allows encourages issues. inform discretion regard. 24 will, discussed briefs us; certiorari; resolution end decide favor. 25 failed unadjudicated 26 governs, suggest definition Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 523 637 (1998) (using interpret provision applications"). parties point Cases controlling writ, 487 (1991), text demonstrates, petition." 27 cases. understanding term. opinion, exhaustion. Id., 520 ("Those submit nevertheless resubmit remainder their claims"). declined possibility arose subsequent considered 520_521 (plurality opinion) ("[A] decides deliberately sets aside risks petitions"). confirmed Terms ago wrote "[None] ever suggested action filing adjudicate these 644. adhere analysis. "any 29 require limit often uncounseled, hand-written, pending until identifies claim. proposed nonfrivolous developed dismissal, single result contrary admonition "trap unwary pro se prisoner." Rose, (internal quotation marks dictated particular contained, none 30 procedure Lundy. No during three months such, Reasoning Appeals' decision, re Turner, 101 1323 1997) (refusing exhaust). practice demonstrates well opinions Courts addressed similar circumstances. Carlson Pitcher, 137 416, 420 (CA6 1998) ("We join every question, previous `second successive' petition"); supra; Christy Horn, 115 201, 208 (CA3 1997); Dickinson Maine, 791 (CA1 1996); Camarano Irvin, 44, 45_46 (CA2 1996). 31 complains unfair. appear plead exhaust. allowing trip through expresses concern again causing repeat itself. manner, contends, vexatious litigant process. tactic become problem, upsetting 32 remains free restrict repeated returns bear applies. itself matters relating petitions. 2254(b)(2). Civil Procedure, applicable general cases, vest flexibility concedes, context instruct bring 41(a) (b). Once aware requirement, exists potential returning comply prejudice. 41(b). condition argument refusing opens door abuses described. 33 wrong, determined reversed, remanded opinion. 34 ordered. 35 whom Breyer join, judgment. 36 With respect noticed Fuller Roe, 182 699, 702 1999); Crowell Walsh, 151 1050, 1051_1052 (CADC 1998); Tejeda Dubois, 142 18, 22, Berrios 126 430, 431, Kunzman, 125 1363, 1364, (CA10 Skandier, 178, 179_182 Hardwick Singletary, 122 935, 936, vacated grounds, 1312 (CA11 Arredondo 120 639, 640 Carter, 117 262, 264 (CA5 Tiedeman Benson, 518, (CA8 1997). 37 balance 38 J. 39 Thomas joins, part. 40 except discussion postexhaustion believe produces produced (1998), 646 (Scalia, dissenting), distortion natural 41 together regardless contains. holdings proposition. holdings: involve bearing narrow dismissed, fairly said embraced proposition latter thought rest theory lack never existed, Or refiling original them exhausted, just renewal implicitly authorized permit former counterfactual; quite plausible. 42 quotes justify mixed-petitions-don't-count theory. `prisoners who_ claims.' Ante, (quoting (emphasis added)). add return, once again, accomplishing allow. And indicates `then remedies' refile `could ' 644 treating "first" bears resemblance initially fact, clearly significance merely renewing old one: incompetence executed previously premature expressly distinguished, open, situation 645, 43 understandably fears consequences approach, expend resources, help sight supposed limitations reassuringly observes ways, "upsetting 12. But above, "established" ceases repetitive filings dismissals course reasons. happens whole purpose solve precisely problem-directly checking "vexatious litigant," ibid., hoping use patchwork achieve end. disagree able orders pursuant burden necessary, however-and reliance judges-if limitation meaning. 44 petitioner's inclusion affirm Appeals.

Category: 0