Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

meet the statute’s standards for admitting new merits evi-
dence, it serves no purpose to develop such evidence just to 
assess  cause  and  prejudice.  See  Shinn,  596  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 20) (“when a federal habeas court . . . admits or
reviews new evidence for any purpose, it may not consider 
that  evidence  on  the  merits  of  a  negligent  prisoner’s  de-
faulted claim unless the exceptions in §2254(e)(2) are satis-
fied”).  The District Court thus erred in ordering Twyford’s
transfer  to  gather  evidence  he  had  never  demonstrated 
would be admissible. 

* 

* 

* 
A  transportation  order  that  allows  a  prisoner  to  search
for new evidence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” 
a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28
U. S. C. §1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the
desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a 
particular claim for relief.  Because the District Court en-
tered such an order despite Twyford’s failure to make the 
required showing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals af-
firming that order is reversed and the case is remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.