Document: 523 U.S. 740118 S.Ct. 1694140 L.Ed.2d 970 Arthur CALDERON, Warden, et al., Petitioners,v.Troy A. ASHMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. No. 97-391. Supreme Court the United States Argued March 24, 1998. Decided May 26, Syllabus * Chapter 154 Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) provides, inter alia, an expedited review process-including a 180-day filing period, 28 U.S.C.A. §2263(a)-for federal habeas proceedings in capital cases that meet certain conditions. Proceedings against other are governed by 153, which has 1-year §2244(d)(1), lacks procedures. After California officials, including petitioner state attorney general, indicated they would invoke 154's protections, respondent, prisoner, sought declaratory injunctive relief to resolve whether applied class prisoners whose convictions were affirmed after particular date. The Federal District issued judgment, holding did not qualify for therefore apply class, enjoined petitioners from invoking any involving members. In affirming, Ninth Circuit rejected petitioners' claim Eleventh Amendment barred respondent's suit; determined had authority issue judgment under Declaratory Judgment Act; contention injunction violated First Amendment. Before reaching issues certiorari was granted, this must address action is type "Article III'' "case or controversy'' courts limited. See, e.g., FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 215, 230-231, 110 596, 607-608, 107 603. Held: This justiciable case Article III. validly confers jurisdiction enter judgments where controversy admit "of specific through decree conclusive character, as distinguished opinion advising what law be upon hypothetical facts.'' Aetna Life Ins. Co. Haworth, 300 227, 241, 57 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617. Here, rather than seeking final determination underlying controversy-whether respondent entitled relief-respondent carved out only question whether, when he relief, California's defense 153 154. He have obtained such itself, but seeks instead advance ruling collateral issue. cannot used purpose. Coffman Breeze Corp., 323 316, 65 298, 89 264. Such action's disruptive effects peculiarly great claims adjudicated habeas, it allow obtain declaration applicable limitations period without ever having shown met exhaustion-of-state-remedies requirement. If members file petitions State asserts 154, can litigate compliance with at time. risk associated resolving pre-emptive suit no different risks choices litigants commonly face. Respondent mistakenly relies Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 94 1209, 39 505, falls within traditional scope actions: It completely resolved concrete susceptible judicial determination. Pp. ____-____. 123 F.3d 1199, reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered unanimous Court. BREYER, J., filed concurring opinion, SOUTER, joined. Ronald S. Matthias, San Francisco, CA, petitioners. Michael Laurence, respondent. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST 1 (AEDPA), §2261 seq. (Supp.1998), provides procedural advantages qualifying proceedings. requires us decide death-row inmates may sue officials limited determining qualifies 2 revises rules cases. Most notably, process brought States. imposes limitation petition. §2263(a). treats untimely petition successive purposes obtaining stay execution, §2262(c), allows prisoner amend answer meets requirements petition, §2266(b)(3)(B). also obligates district court render 180 days its filing, appeals 120 briefing. §§2266(a) (c). 3 As general rule, 153-which procedures-governs State. will if A establish "a mechanism appointment, compensation, payment reasonable litigation expenses competent counsel'' post-conviction proceedings, "must provide standards competency appointment counsel.'' §2261(b) (States separate postconviction proceedings); §2265(a) unitary procedures).1 offer counsel defendants, order concerning counsel. §2261(b); §2265(b). these criteria, then 4 Various Attorney General Lungren, publicly thought qualified intended Chapter's protections. Troy Ashmus, sentenced death, included direct appeal June 6, 1989, uncertainty over applied. 5 does presently preliminary enjoining "trying benefits provisions . member.'' 935 F.Supp. 1048, 1076 (N.D.Cal.1996). 6 Appeals affirmed. 1199 (1997). threshold matter, one concluded Ex parte Young exception immunity, Young, 209 123, 441, 52 714 (1908), because sufficiently alleged continuing violation law. F.3d, 1204-1206. announced intention complied requirements, threatened violate members' right thorough their first petitions, pursuant assistance 21 U.S.C. §848(q). By stating reasoned, forced make unacceptable choice: pro se ensure fail raise substantial claims, waiting until appointed, miss deadline applies. 1204-1205. 7 §2201(a). 1206-1207. noted plaintiff need demonstrate independent basis actual controversy. Id., 1206. §1331 challenged interpretation act. And requirement satisfied, concluded, "the State's threats significantly affect plaintiff-class's ability corpus court.'' 1207. 8 agreed large part Court's conclusion qualify, found inapplicable. affirming grant advocacy legal position violates interfere officials' rights since free voice decision wrong-only 1207-1209. 9 Petitioners We granted both issues, 522 ----, 118 139 432 (1997), keeping our precedents, decided we sort 603 (1990).2 10 enactment Act, expressed view "declaratory judgment'' jurisdiction. Willing Chicago Auditorium Assn., 277 274, 289, 48 507, 509, 72 880 (1928). But Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Wallace, 288 249, 53 345, 77 730 (1933), held court. 617 (1937), conferred appropriate 11 That " [i]n jurisdiction, declare relations interested party declaration, further could sought.'' §2201. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 57. Thus, Ins., insurance company bring determine validity policies. insured disputed policies lapsed how much currently payable, recover benefits. U.S., 239-240, S.Ct., 463-464. observed 464. supra, 262, 347-348. thus recognized potential suits fall outside constitutional definition "case'' III: "brought before court(s) regular established custom protection enforcement rights, prevention, redress, punishment wrongs.''' Fairchild Hughes, 258 126, 129, 42 275, 66 499 (1922). 12 "controversy'' between setting aside his sentence conviction courts. action. Instead, defending Had undoubtedly determination, anticipation so better able know, example, time limits govern 13 think previous decisions bar use 264 (1945), patent owner Royalty Adjustment declared unconstitutional enjoin licensee paying accrued royalties government. presented properly arise holder royalties, afford complete adequate relief. suit, assert obligation pay amounts due, holder's recovery depend Act's validity. 322-323, 301-302. there "unless [the owner] licensee] defense.'' 324, 302. Public Serv. Comm'n Utah Wycoff Co., 344 237, 245-246, 73 236, 241-242, 97 291 (1952). 14 Coffman, here may, not, proceeding. merely resolution alternative format, attempts gain advantage affirmative defense, see 322-324, 301-303; 241-242. actually stake individual Any entire them, governing aspects pending future suits. 15 For attacking duration confinement sections Title Code. Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 500, 93 1827, 1841-1842, 36 439 (1973). pointed out, means required exhaust remedies bringing 489-491, 1836-1837. Ashmus allowed maintain present action, statute exhausted remedies. aberration illustrates need, emphasized Wycoff, prevent single dispute await another lawsuit resolution. 16 obviously time.3 faced litigants. 17 When asked oral argument existed allowing anticipated replied 505 (1974), interference rights. Brief 16. Although acknowledging involved threat arrest Amendment, argued distinguish types threats. according "threat'' thereby lose application sufficient 18 Steffel, however, actions protesters twice been told arrested handbilling front shopping center, plaintiff's companion fact disregarding instructions leave. 455-456, 1213-1214. imminent criminal prosecution consequent deterrence exercise constitutionally protected 459, 1215-1216. plaintiff. 460-462, 1216-1217. 19 differences several. assertions coercive impact obligations either party. State, who anticipate lawsuits. Those challenge state-court sentences; oppose challenges. those challenges, simply carve adjudication. 20 conclude meaning accordingly reversed, remanded complaint dismissed. ordered. 22 Justice concurring, whom SOUTER joins. 23 says [respondents] 154'' "file petitions.'' Ante, __. light Appeals' concern, echoed members, placed untenable remedial "dilemma,'' 16-17, 35-37; 1205 (C.A.9 1997), I add should prove possible least some relatively expeditious guidance others. because, cases, amend, say, "bare bones'' (filed days) likely does, "opt-in'' Compare §2242 (ordinary amendment rules); §2254 (rules civil procedure petitions); J. Liebman R. Hertz, Habeas Corpus Practice Procedure §17.2 (2d ed.1994 Supp.1997) (Federal Civil 15's liberal standard applies eligible 154) §2266(b)(3)(B) (Supp.1998) (setting forth strict 154). court's turned might well interlocutory appeal. §1292(b) (permitting certification, hence appeal, determinations). With understanding, join opinion. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. undisputed challenges course raised (Supp.1998). While jurisdictional sense power, stage co-extensive power Idaho Coeur d'Alene Tribe Idaho, 521 117 2028, 2033, 138 438 (1997); Patsy Board Regents Fla., 457 496, 515, n. 19, 102 2557, 2567, 172 (1982). conceded point earlier briefings. Opposition 7. now contends, effective remedy still put file-or-default dilemma relieve uncertainty. 35-36. explained, __-__, face sense. inability bind government whole

Category: 8