Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 867

1020 

OCTOBER TERM, 2009 

November 9, 2009 

558 U. S. 

Under  our  normal  practice,  Muhammad’s  timely  petition  for  cer­
tiorari would have been reviewed at our Conference on November 
24,  2009.  Virginia  has  scheduled  his  execution  for  November  10, 
however,  so  we  must  resolve  the  petition  on  an  expedited  basis 
unless we grant a temporary stay.  By denying Muhammad’s stay 
application, we have allowed Virginia  to truncate our deliberative 
process  on  a  matter—involving  a  death  row  inmate—that  de­
mands  the  most  careful  attention.  This  result  is  particularly  un­
fortunate  in  light  of  the  limited  time  Muhammad  was  given  to 
make  his  case  in  the  District  Court. 

I  continue  to  believe  that  the  Court  would  be  wise  to  adopt  a 
practice  of  staying  all  executions  scheduled  in  advance  of  the 
completion  of  our  review  of  a  capital  defendant’s  ﬁrst  application 
for  a  federal  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  See,  e. g.,  Emmett  v.  Kelly, 
552 U. S. 942 (2007) (Stevens, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., respect­
ing denial of certiorari); Breard v.  Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 379 (1998) 
(Stevens, J., dissenting).  Such a practice would give meaningful 
effect  to  the  distinction  Congress  has  drawn  between  ﬁrst  and 
successive  habeas  petitions.  See  28  U. S. C.  § 2244(b).  It  would 
also  serve  the  interests  of  avoiding  irreversible  error,  facilitating 
the efﬁcient management of our  docket, and preserving basic fair­
ness  by  ensuring  death  row  inmates  receive  the  same  procedural 
safeguards  that  ordinary  inmates  receive. 

Having  reviewed  petitioner’s  claims,  I  do  not  dissent  from  the 
Court’s decision to deny certiorari.  “I do, however, remain ﬁrmly 
convinced  that  no  State  should  be  allowed  to  foreshorten  this 
 ﬁrst-time  habeas  petition[s]  by 
.
Court’s  orderly  review  of .
executing  prisoners  before  that  review  can  be  completed.”  Em­
mett,  552  U. S.,  at  943. 

.

Rehearing  Denied 

No.  08–9884.  Cooper  v.  United  States,  ante,  p.  830; 
No. 08–10450.  Purpura v.  Bushkin, Gaimes, Gains, Jonas & 

Stream  et  al.,  ante,  p.  840;  and 

No.  08–11025.  Wells  v.  Carro,  Judge,  Supreme  Court  of 
New  York,  New  York  County,  ante,  p.  866.  Petitions  for  re­
hearing  denied. 

No.  08–608.  Flipping  et  al.  v.  Reilly,  555  U. S.  1170.  Mo­

tion  for  leave  to  ﬁle  petition  for  rehearing  denied.