Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–511 
_________________ 

TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. 
RAYMOND A. TWYFORD, III 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

The Court today reviews a District Court’s pretrial order 
requiring Ohio “to transport a prisoner in its custody to a
hospital for medical testing” in order to develop evidence to
support  the  prisoner’s  habeas  petition.    Ante,  at  1.  The 
Court holds that the District Court’s order did not comply
with the All Writs Act because the District Court failed to 
consider whether the evidence sought could be admissible 
in the habeas proceeding.  See ante, at 9–10.  I would not 
reach the merits of that question because I do not believe 
that  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  jurisdiction  to  hear  the
State’s interlocutory appeal.  I respectfully dissent. 

I 
Courts  of  Appeals  generally  have  jurisdiction  to  review
“final  decisions  of  the  district  courts.”    28  U. S. C.  §1291.
They do not ordinarily hear interlocutory appeals.  Limiting
appellate  jurisdiction  over  interlocutory  matters  avoids 
piecemeal decisionmaking and “combine[s] in one review all 
stages  of  the  proceeding  that  effectively  may  be  reviewed
and corrected if and when final judgment results.”  Cohen 
v.  Beneficial  Industrial  Loan  Corp.,  337  U. S.  541,  546 
(1949).  Too  many  interlocutory  appeals  could  slow  down