Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

SHOOP v. TWYFORD 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S.,  at  103.  A  court  therefore  must,  consistent  with 
AEDPA, determine at the outset whether the new evidence 
sought could be lawfully considered.

This is true even when the All Writs Act is the asserted 
vehicle  for  gathering  new  evidence.    We  have  made  clear 
that a petitioner cannot use that Act to circumvent statu-
tory  requirements  or  otherwise  binding  procedural  rules.
See  Pennsylvania  Bureau  of  Correction  v.  United  States 
Marshals  Service,  474  U. S.  34,  43  (1985)  (“Although  [the
Act] empowers federal courts to fashion extraordinary rem-
edies when the need arises, it does not authorize them to 
issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory pro-
cedures  appears  inconvenient  or  less  appropriate.”);  Syn-
genta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28, 32–33 
(2002) (same).  AEDPA provides the governing rules for fed-
eral habeas proceedings, and our precedents explain that a
district court must consider that statute’s requirements be-
fore  facilitating  the  development  of  new  evidence.    See 
Schriro, 550 U. S., at 474; see also Shinn, 596 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 21).

By  the  same  token,  a  writ  seeking  new  evidence  would 
not be “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” a federal habeas
court’s jurisdiction, as all orders issued under the All Writs 
Act must be, if it enables a prisoner to fish for unusable ev-
idence, in the hope that it might undermine his conviction 
in  some  way.    In  every  habeas  case,  “the  court  must  be
guided by the general principles underlying our habeas cor-
pus jurisprudence.”  Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. 538, 
554  (1998).  A  writ  that  enables  a  prisoner  to  gather  evi-
dence that would not be admissible would “needlessly pro-
long”  resolution  of  the  federal  habeas  case,  Shinn,  596 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 21), and frustrate the “State’s in-
terest[ ] in finality,” Calderon, 523 U. S., at 556.  Cf. Harris 
v.  Nelson,  394  U. S.  286,  300  (1969)  (recognizing,  before 
AEDPA, that a writ is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” 
a federal habeas court’s jurisdiction if “specific allegations”