Document: 434 U.S. 257 98 S.Ct. 556 54 L.Ed.2d 521 Ben Earl BROWDER, Petitioner,v.DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ILLINOIS. No. 76-5325. Argued Oct. 31, 1977. Decided Jan. 10, 1978. Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, See 1089, 1286. Syllabus by the Court After unsuccessful efforts to overturn his state-court conviction on direct appeal and state collateral attack, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court, which October 1975, ordered release from respondent Corrections Director's custody unless State retried him within 60 days. The court held no evidentiary hearing, but based its order petition, respondent's "motion dismiss," record. Twenty-eight days after entry order, moved for stay conditional an hearing. granted motion, hearing ruled January 26, 1976, that was properly issued. Respondent immediately filed notice seeking review both 21 26 orders Appeals reversed. Rule App.Proc. 4(a) 28 U.S.C. § 2107 require civil case be 30 judgment or is taken, under running time filing may tolled timely motion district pursuant Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 52(b) 59. Held: lacked jurisdiction original because (in essence rehearing reconsideration) untimely 59 hence could not toll "mandatory jurisdictional" 30-day limit 4(a). Pp. 246-271. (a) final purposes 2253, provides proceeding "final order." discharged duty 2243 "summarily [to] hear determine facts" granting petition record, absence whether error not, did render nonfinal. 265-267. (b) Habeas proceeding, Rules were applicable. While procedures set forth statutes apply during pendency such Fed.Rules 81(a)(2) recognizes supremacy over Rules, say nothing about proper method obtaining correction asserted errors judgment, court. Accordingly, timeliness post-judgment governed 267-271. 534 F.2d 331, Kenneth N. Flaxman, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Raymond McKoski, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This requires us decide directing petitioner's discharge untimely. In resolve this question, we must consider applicability proceedings. Because conclude jurisdiction, reverse.1 2 * On 29, 1971, teenage girl reported Chicago police she had been raped. She gave physical description her assailants one officer told another attackers named "Browder," 17 years old, lived 4000 block West Monroe. basis information further investigation, focused brother, Tyrone Browder, whose name files Youth Division Police Department. A telephone conversation between Mrs. Lucille Browder shifted officers' suspicions petitioner, agreed keep sons at home until arrived talk them. Four officers interviewed whom denied knowledge rape. arrested brothers along with two other Negro males who present home. four arrestees taken station, where noticed fit assailant rape place 30. separate lineups, each complainant identified as assailant. being informed rights required Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), confessed second having committed 29. 3 At trial rape, unsuccessfully suppress lineup identification confession grounds unrelated lawfulness arrest, challenge. appeal, however, argued fruits unlawful effected without probable cause warrant. Illinois intermediate appellate invoked contemporaneous-objection rule waived claim. Petitioner's obtain claim Supreme attack fared better. 4 Petitioner met success last when he petitioned issued released hold it found dismiss,"2 record arrest evening 1971. Unable taint dissipated obtained, inadmissible.3 5 November 18, Court's "to Further Stay Execution Writ Corpus Conduct Evidentiary Hearing." submitted inadequate "erred first conducting if fact so, thereby tainted." App. 118. cited Townsend Sain, 372 293, 83 745, 9 770 (1963), United States ex rel. McNair New Jersey, 492 1307 (CA3 1974), authority right identify source court's motion. 6 nevertheless entertained execution December 8, 12 date issue cause. noted inadequacy state-trial raised dismiss" concluded "that request should solely untimely."4 120. vacate ground enter explained period prescribed Civil Procedure new alter amend elapsed,5 "no longer ha[d] vacatur are void orders." Id., 122.6 7 7, ruled: "[T]he 1975. reconsider therefore DENIED." 161. well 26. maintained, consistently, relief, since n. 5, supra. Even construed denial relief 60(b), would have timely, only abuse discretion.7 disclaimed reliance insisting instead 26.8 8 address question except observe, cryptic footnote, "whether there appeal" admissible Brown Illinois, 422 590, 95 2254, 45 416 (1975). reversed published opinion, holding Judgt. 331 (CA7 1976). denied. We certiorari. 429 1072, 97 808, 50 789 (1977). II Under 2107, taken. jurisdictional." Robinson, 361 220, 229, 80 282, 288, 259 (1960). also Fallen States, 378 139, 84 1689, 760 (1964); Coppedge 369 438, 442, 82 917, 919, (1962); Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 227, 78 674, 721 (1958); Matton Steamboat Co. Murphy, 319 412, 415, 63 1126, 1128, 87 L.Ed. 1483 (1943); George Victor Talking Mach. 293 377, 379, 55 230, 79 439 (1934). purpose clear: It definite point litigation shall end, application has made; advise prospective appellees they freed appellant's demands. Any construction statute defeat purpose." Steamboat, supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1128. 10 tolled, according terms 4(a), Respondent's discharged. see 21. But answers do and, any event, proceeding.9 these contentions. 11 An lies order," 2253. purported final, directed retry contends, " 'leaving done enforce what determined,' Catlin Un ted 324 236, 65 631, 635, 89 911 (1945), all Act completed issued." Brief 42. cites §§ 2254(d) decision support contention "cannot considered [§] 2253 left unresolved statutorily QUESTION WHETHER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WOULD BE REQUIRED . ." brief 43. position confuses nonfinality fails distinguish requirements procedural means correcting fulfilling statutory command. Here facts," 2243, Walker Johnston, 312 275, 284, 61 574, 578, 85 830 (1941).10 failure assert need dismiss necessarily deprive reason reconsideration11 appeal,12 neither If correct theory finality, later alleged entered precipitately incomplete nonfinal appeal. confusion result litigants' divergent views completeness proceedings wholly odds imperative jurisdictional explicit unambiguous. B 13 Since commenced run date. 68 days, 18 rationale behind tolling principle same traditional practice: "A tolls [appeal] operates suspend finality pending determination modified so adjudication parties." Department Banking Pink, 317 264, 266, 233, 234, 254 (1942) (emphasis supplied). does effect. seeks avoid conclusion Appellate asserting applicable proceeding. 14 rely particular making suffice make inapplicable. insistence rather parallels reflects recognize prescribe postjudgment procedures. During procedure indeed out statutes, Rules. those 15 asserts allowed Dieter, 6, (1976). relying upon misconceives our case. There followed Healy, 376 75, 553, 527 (1964), criminal Government effect Instead 'traditional virtually unquestioned practice' dictated 3, 19, (quoting 79, 556); absent specifying different limit, "when review," 78, 555. case, reconsideration 59, allows days;13 follows "traditional practice" requiring maintained throughout inapplicable habeas.14 think mistaken assumption. settled Fisher Baker, 203 174, 181, 27 135, 136, 51 142 (1906); Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 556, 871, 826 (1883); Heflin 358 U.S 418 451, 453, 407 (1959). Perhaps recognition differences general proceedings, Harris Nelson, 394 286, 293-294, 4, 1082, 1087-1088, 22 281 (1969), extent practice heretofore conformed actions." 81(a)(2); 1. discovery authorized 33 available intended scope history clear read exclude proceedings." 1087. Thompson INS, 375 384, 397, 404 hand, assumed discussion applied "proceeding admission citizenship" which, qualified 81(a)(2). Although occasion Courts uniformly assumed. E. g., Rothman 508 648, 651 1975); Hunter Thomas, 173 810 (CA10 1949) (motion custodian). combined predecessor, 73(a), resulted dismissal appeals dispositions petitions. Flint Howard, 464 1084, 1086 (CA1 1972). Fitzsimmons Yeager, 391 849 (CA3) (en banc), cert. denied, 393 868, 154, 137 (1968); Munich 330 774 (CA9 1964). 19 contrary. No addressed grant before advent respect reopening judgment. common law, power own judgments during, after, term rendered, Mayer, 235 55, 67, 35 16, 129 (1914); Bronson Schulten, 104 410, 797 (1882); Lange, Wall. 163, 167, 872 (1874); Basset 38, 41, 548 (1870); cases, Aderheld 103 1939); Tiberg Warren, 192 F. 458, 463 1911). 1946 amendments abolished confined stated Advisory Committee Report, F.R.D. 483, 486-487 (1946). "The abolishing substitute indefiniteness. contrary, precise times, independent term, prescribed." Smith, 469, 473 2, 67 1330, 1333, 91 1610 (1947) (referring Criminal motions). 20 addition conformity limits emphasis "just" "speedy" adjudication, 1, ideal "a swift, flexible, summary determination" Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 495, 93 1827, 1839, 36 (1973). Fay Noia, 391, 401-402, 822, 828, 829, 837 (1963); Mattox Scott, 507 923 1974); Wallace Heinze, 351 39, 40 1965), 954, 1574, 550 (1966). "interest speedy disposition finality," Silk Sandoval, 435 1266, 1268 (CA1), 402 1012, 2189, 29 (1971). some aspects inappropriate supra; Preiser, 495-496, 1839-1840, requirement prompt suited "special problems character 296, 1089. Application strict motions rulings petitions, then, thoroughly consistent spirit statutes. failed comply limits, Reversed. 23 BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST joins, concurring. 24 I join add comment that, slightly altered circumstances, might sustained 60(b)(1) (6). treating post-evidentiary-hearing dated 28, reinstating With thus newly entered, 27. Edwards Louisiana, 520 321 (CA5 1975), 423 96 882, 47 100 25 decline treat matter 60(b) merely label initial "Rule motion," exalt nomenclature substance. J. Moore, Practice ¶ 60.42, p. 903 (1975) ("[M]islabelled moving papers treated prejudice"). Certainly recognized provide order; satisfy "reasonable time" standard meet substantive categories 60(b). Memorandum Law Support Motion Vacate 75 C 69 (ND Ill.) pp. 2-3; 76 1089 (CA7), 13. Judge's actions, denominating writ" denying reconsider," more obstacle. Judge, though noting "untimely" (App. 120), evidently permit re-examination light evidence presented 1976. obvious way examination course aside Though made finding standards (6) satisfied, deny sub silentio disputing subsections. Arguably Judge turned up mandating change habeas. where, here, acted conduct 48 judgment—when possibility retroactive extension taking still open—a reluctant interpret ambiguous succession intending preclude full determination. Were sitting Appeals, chosen difficulty effecting rescue Appeals' strenuously resisted aid. Respondent, fearing declining 60(b)—rather than re-entering already 60(b)—and limited determining discretion, urged reply "[i]n 60, 2254 iTownsend [83 770] fac[e] motion." And deepen difficulty, added: "Indeed doubtful even applies cases." disavowed preferring bank governing federal Opposition 7; Tr. Oral Arg. 33-34. obligation part attempt basis. disposition, nnecessary reach questions presented. point, contended erred facts de novo concluding lawful. latter youths violated Fourth Fourteenth Amendments' cause, Davis Mississippi, 721, 1394, 676 assuming existence Amendments warrant entering arrests. parties disputed Amendment barred either Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 2497, 53 594 (1977), Stone Powell, 428 465, 3037, 49 1067 Finally, questioned validity Seventh Circuit's "unpublished opinion" rule. leave day. "failure granted, 12(b)(6) Procedure." base waiver arrest; merits raise bar found, citing deliberate tactical forgo By untimeliness apparently meant prior ruling mention Procedure. mentioned setting 59(a). 59(b) "shall served judgment." Similarly, "[u]pon party findings additional accordingly." 52(b). 59(e), "[a] neglected impossible tell 59(a), 52(b), 59(e). 6(b) prohibits enlargement three contain 10-day unnecessary trial, findings, refer reconsideration, requested. generally 8-9, 19-20, acknowledged certain enumerated modify ten day 52 59"; "insufficient" insufficiency two-fold: time," Rule; significantly, allegations qualify Rule's six categories. convince hearing; introduce additional, discovered, evidence. unlike limit. from, affect of, 60.29, 413-414 Thus, while lost existed bring underlying review. Daily Mirror, Inc. York News, Inc., 533 (CA2), 862, 166, 140 (1976); Brennan Midwestern Life Ins. 450 999 1971), 405 921, 92 957, 792 (1972); 60.19, 231; 60.30[3], 430-431 insisted derives consistently view desired force arguments represented construe such, find despite reference specified grounds, action reversible improper Rule. Governing Cases provides: Procedure, inconsistent rules, applied, appropriate, petitions rules." cases February They bearing instant undisputed Developments Law—Federal Corpus, Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1192, 262 (1970). situations "on admitted, appear prisoner entitled discharge." 578. Several establish constitutional rights. Gladden Gidley, 337 575, 578 1964) (dictum); Meers Wilkins, 326 (CA2 (Marshall, J.); Dorsey Gill, U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 857, 866, 325 890, 1580, 2003 (1945). express issuing discharge. See, e. Gladden, 1949). Mitchell Follette, 922 1966); better procedure, course, custodian indicate, submission asking deems itself denied." Mitchell, 929. McNair, 1309; contemplates like misunderstands import Dieter Healy. resort predicated explicitly relevant trial. Where, governs problem Healy absent. assume, applicable; denominated response conception—which heart lack rendered nonfinal—seems appropriate proceed through answer, discovery, erroneous. 496, custodian's dismiss. responding corpus, 81(a)(2), takes precedence

Category: 8