Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

ground  that  he  failed  to  raise  them  in  state  court.    The 
District  Court  did  not  rule  on  that  motion  for  nine  years.
Eventually, it dismissed most of Twyford’s claims as proce-
durally defaulted but allowed a few, including some ineffec-
tive  assistance  of  counsel  claims,  to  proceed.    Twyford  v. 
Bradshaw, No. 2:03–cv–906 (SD Ohio, Sept. 27, 2017). 

Twyford then moved for an order compelling the State “to
transport [him] to The Ohio State University Medical Cen-
ter  for  medical  testing  necessary  for  the  investigation,
presentation,  and  development  of  claims.”   Motion  to 
Transport  for  Medical  Testing  in  No.  2:03–cv–906  (SD 
Ohio), p. 1 (Motion to Transport).  Twyford explained that
such testing could not be conducted at the prison, and ar-
gued that it was necessary to determine whether he suffers
neurological defects due to childhood physical abuse, alco-
hol and drug use, and the self-inflicted gunshot wound to
his head.  Id., at 3.  In support of his motion, he attached a
letter from a neurologist stating that “a CT/FDG-PET scan 
would  be  a  useful  next  step  to  further  evaluate  [him]  for 
brain injury,” in part because previous scans revealed 20 to 
30 metal fragments in his skull.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 272a.
Twyford argued that it was “plausible” that the testing was
“likely to reveal evidence in support of ” claims and that it 
“could  plausibly  lead  to  the  development  of  evidence  and
materials” that could counter arguments of “procedural de-
fault or exhaustion.”  Motion to Transport 8.  He also urged 
the  court  to  disregard,  at  least  for  now,  the  question
whether the results of the brain testing would be admissi-
ble. 

The District Court granted Twyford’s motion and ordered 
the State to transport him to the Medical Center.  It deter-
mined that the order was appropriate under the All Writs
Act, which authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs nec-
essary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and  agreeable  to  the  usages  and  principles  of  law.”  28 
U. S. C.  §1651(a).    The  District  Court  did  not  address