Opinion ID: 449763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appealability of district court's order

Text: Following the publication of our opinion in this case at 737 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.1984), the Court withheld the mandate sua sponte to give further consideration to the appealability of the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus. In that opinion, we announced what amounted to a new procedural rule touching upon the finality of judgments of habeas courts which enter judgments on some, but less than all, the claims before them. That rule is that each ground or basis which a habeas petitioner assigns as a ground or reason for the grant of the writ is a separate claim within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) 1 and that if the habeas court either grants the petition or denies it by deciding some, but not all, of the issues presented, the judgment of the Court is not a final judgment and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under U.S.Code, Section 1291. 2 Since, as we recognized in our prior opinion, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not always apply to habeas proceedings, we undertook to consider their applicability to the appeal in this case. The issue was not raised by either party and was, of course, not briefed. Upon further consideration, we have concluded that our prior opinion should be vacated. 1 We perceive a substantial difference between the finality of a judgment by a district court granting the writ of habeas corpus on two of several grounds and of a judgment denying the writ on the basis of the court's determining the sufficiency of less than all of the asserted grounds. The only question we have before us on appealability is of the former kind of order. 2 We now conclude that a judgment ordering the release of a convicted defendant unless the state should retry him within a specified time ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). 3 Since both parties here were faced with a judgment that gave the petitioner all he could hope to achieve by the litigation and the state was required to hold a new trial or release the petitioner, it would defy logic for us to hold that such a judgment was not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. 4 We arrive at this conclusion without reaching the question whether each separate ground alleged as a basis for granting the writ is a claim under Rule 54(b) and without reaching the question whether, assuming it is, Rule 54(b) should be adhered to in a case in which the district judge denies the writ on one or more, but less than all, the claims. Those two questions remain for a later day when they are presented to the Court in an actual case and they are fully briefed by the parties.