Document: 537 U.S. 88 ABDUR'RAHMANv.BELL, WARDEN. No. 01-9094. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 6, 2002. Decided December 10, Certiorari dismissed. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. James S. Liebman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Thomas C. Goldstein, by appointment Court, U. 809, Amy Howe, William P. Redick, Jr., and Bradley MacLean. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General Tennessee, respondent. brief Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Joseph F. Whalen, Assistant Gordon W. Smith, Associate General. J. Zidlicky State Alabama et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. Bill Pryor, Alabama, Nathan A. Forrester, John M. Bailey, Chief State's Connecticut, Carter Phillips, Gene Schaerr, Attorneys their respective States follows: Janet Napolitano Arizona, Mark Lunsford Pryor Arkansas, Lockyer California, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Robert Butterworth Florida, Thurbert Baker Georgia, Alan Lance Idaho, Ryan Illinois, Steve Indiana, Carla Stovall Kansas, Richard Ieyoub Louisiana, Reilly Massachusetts, Mike McGrath Montana, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, David Samson New Jersey, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Fisher Pennsylvania, Charles Condon South Carolina, Barnett Cornyn Texas, L. Shurtleff Utah, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, West Virginia.* PER CURIAM. 1 The writ certiorari is dismissed improvidently granted. Notes: * Briefs ofamici reversal filed Neal Elizabeth Taylor Ronald H. Weich; National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Deanne Maynard, Donald B. Verrilli, Lisa Kemler, Edward Chikofsky. A ofamicus affirmance was Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger. 2 JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. 3 Court's decision to dismiss granted presumably motivated, at least in part, view that jurisdictional issues presented this case do not admit an easy resolution.1 I share view. Moreover, believe we have obligation provide needed clarification concerning important issue has generated confusion among federal courts, namely, availability Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b) motions challenge integrity final orders entered habeas corpus proceedings. therefore respectfully dissent from disposition case. 4 In 1988 Tennessee affirmed petitioner's conviction his death sentence. His attempts obtain postconviction relief state court system unsuccessful. 1996 he application a District advancing several constitutional claims, two which raised difficult questions. first challenged competency trial counsel second made serious allegations prosecutorial misconduct. After hearing extensive evidence both April 8, 1998, order granting claim, but holding procedurally barred because it had been fully exhausted courts. Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, 999 Supp. 1073 (MD Tenn. 1998). procedural bar resulted failure ask review lower courts' refusal grant misconduct claim. Id., 1080-1083. 5 ruling claim appeared be correct under Sixth Circuit precedent2 consistent with later O'Sullivan Boerckel, 526 838 (1999). response our O'Sullivan, however, June 28, 2001, adopted new rule changed legal landscape. See re: Order Establishing 39, Rules Tennessee: Exhaustion Remedies. App. 278. That perfectly clear was, fact, erroneous.3 6 warden appealed writ, petitioner did appeal barred. Appeals set aside petitioner, 226 3d 696 (CA6 2000), denied petition October 9, 534 970. proceedings thereafter initiated questions now refuses decide. 7 On 2, motion, pursuant Procedure,4 seeking judgment 1998. motion assert any claims rely newly discovered evidence. It merely asked its 1998 terminating proceeding decide merits held relied ground 39 demonstrated based mistaken premise. 8 Relying precedent,5 27, that: (1) characterized "second or successive application" governed 28 § 2244; (2) without jurisdiction motion;6 (3) transferred 1631.7 9 Petitioner sought Appeals. notice requested certificate appealability. Docket Case 96-CV-380 Tenn., Apr. 23, 1996), 11. Appeals, appeal, again appealability, moved consolidate pre-existing original petition. 28. January 18, 2002, endorsed specifically including characterization Nos. 98-6568/6569, 01-6504 (CA6), p. 35, 36. stated "district properly found equivalent petition," then Abdur' Rahman's satisfy gateway criteria forth 2244(b)(2) filing such Ibid. concluded "all panel denied." 37. order, February 11, id., 38, referred additional filings them all.8 10 Thereafter stayed execution Appeals' motion.9 535 1016 (2002). II 11 answer parties address depends whether styled actually file petition, held. If latter, clearly failed follow procedure specified U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A).10 other hand, if valid filing, denial relief—either timely matter 1631.11 either event before and—since 2244(b)(3)(E) does apply motions—we certainly 18 Thus, resolve necessary identify difference, any, between application. 12 As Judge Tjoflat explained recent opinion addressing precise issue, difference defined applicant seeks. Is court's one more grounds 60(b), basis claim? Referring successive" wrote: 13 "The distinction lies harm each designed cure. `second successive' discussed above, meant specific types prisoners: `rel[y] law,' law are `could previously through exercise due diligence' would establish factual innocence. 2244(b)(3)(A). Neither these challenges district previous 2254. Instead, alleges contextual circumstances so much sentence runs afoul Constitution. 14 "In contrast, 60 contests judgment. 15 . 16 "When moves under, example, 60(b)(3), impugning rejecting obtained fraud. Asserting quite different contending, `in violation Constitution laws treaties States.' 2254(a). 17 sum, like all petitions, remedy violations (albeit ones arise out facts evolved after initial proceeding), while cure earlier proceeding—here, proceeding—that raise about proceeding's integrity. 19 "As note, add just law, also comports fair equitable administration justice. If, row inmate could show indeed committed fraud upon during proceeding, miscarriage justice turned blind eye abuse judicial process. Nevertheless, result occur petitioners' always considered petitions. all, `a law' may `establish convincing ... no reasonable factfinder guilty underlying offense.' 2244(b)(2). nonetheless must recognized." Mobley Head, 306 1096, 1100-1105 (CA11 2002) (dissenting opinion). 20 Tjoflat's reasoning decisions Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 523 637 (1998), Slack McDaniel, 529 473 (2000). Applying present case, proper motion. (Whether should question.) purport state-court conviction. did, seek directly indirectly identified possible bases relief. Essentially submitted "changes landscape," Agostini Felton, 521 203, 215 (1997), effected Tennessee's rested view, mistake constituted "reason justifying operation judgment" within meaning 60(b)(6). Whether ultimately agrees disagrees submission, sufficient arguable merit persuade four Members III 21 comprehensive memorandum supporting submission 171-267. He already proves prosecutor misconduct; affidavits executed eight members jury sentenced they voted favor penalty known improperly withheld concealed them; inequitable allow erroneous deprive merits. former prosecutors urges us stressing importance condemning conduct disclosed record.12 Arguably appropriate question my opinion, requires addressed instance Court. 22 heard relevant well persuaded appellate courts ineffective (relief conclusion counsel's ineffectiveness affect outcome trial). is, therefore, best position evaluate considerations taken into account simply orderly procedure, 23 plainly erred when reason. "federalism" concerns motivated misguided Coleman Thompson, 501 722 (1991),13 (1999), even arguably support Circuit's vacate remand instructions direct 24, weeks oral argument, directing supplemental questions: "Did dated transferring 1631? Does denying leave petition?"Post, 996. SeeSilverburg Evitts, 993 2d 124 1993). Other Circuits exhaustion requirement satisfied discretionary highest court. See, e. g., Dolny Erickson, 32 381 (CA8 1994); Boerckel 135 1194 (CA7 reads, part: appeals criminal convictions post-conviction matters July 1, 1967, litigant shall required rehearing permission following adverse deemed available remedies respecting error. Rather, denied, claim." This type action anticipated—indeed, invited—by concurring inO'Sullivan 838, 849-850 (1999) (opinion SOUTER, J.). provides, "On terms just, relieve party party's representative judgment, reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect; diligence time move 59(b); (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic extrinsic), misrepresentation, party; (4) void; (5) reversed otherwise vacated, longer prospective application; (6) reason time, reasons (1), (2), than year taken." McQueen Scroggy, 99 1302, 1335 1996) ("We agree those circuits practical ."). Title 2244(b)(ii)(3)(A) provides: "Before permitted section court, authorizing consider application." Section 1631 "Whenever civil 610 title administrative action, noticed finds there want jurisdiction, shall, interest justice, transfer brought noticed, proceed date transferred." Under precedent, section. SeeIn re Sims, 111 45 1997). One paragraph reads construing ostensible appealable 01-6504, DISMISSED lack jurisdiction." read "1. holding, square conflict circuits, every Motion constitutes prohibited law. "2. abuses discretion refusing permit consideration vital intervening development precludes ever receiving adjudication merits." Pet. Cert. 2244(b)(3)(A) particular Regardless divested further proceedings, hear Brief asAmici Curiae 24. "This federalism." S., 726

Category: 0