Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SHOOP, WARDEN v. TWYFORD 

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

No. 21–511.  Argued April 26, 2022—Decided June 21, 2022 

Respondent Raymond Twyford was convicted by an Ohio jury of aggra-
vated murder and other charges and was sentenced to death.  The Ohio 
appellate courts affirmed his conviction and sentence.  Twyford then 
sought state postconviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to present evidence of a head injury Twyford sus-
tained as a teenager.  The Ohio courts rejected his claim, concluding
that trial counsel had simply presented a competing psychological the-
ory for Twyford’s actions.  Twyford then filed a petition for federal ha-
beas relief.  The District Court dismissed most of Twyford’s claims as
procedurally defaulted but allowed a few to proceed.  He then moved 
for an order compelling the State to transport him to a medical facility,
arguing that neurological testing would plausibly lead to the develop-
ment of evidence to support his claim that he suffers neurological de-
fects.  The District Court granted Twyford’s motion under the All Writs 
Act,  which  authorizes  federal  courts  to  “issue  all  writs  necessary  or 
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law.”  28 U. S. C. §1651(a).  The Court of Ap-
peals affirmed.  Both courts concluded that it was unnecessary to con-
sider the admissibility of any resulting evidence prior to ordering the
State to transport Twyford to gather it. 

Held: A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new ev-
idence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s ad-
judication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown 
that  the  desired  evidence  would  be  admissible  in  connection  with  a 
particular claim for relief.  Pp. 4–11.

(a) The State argues that the All Writs Act does not authorize the
issuance of transportation orders for medical testing at all.  The State 
also  argues  that  the  order  issued  in  this  case  was  not  “necessary  or