Document: 523 U.S. 637118 S.Ct. 1618140 L.Ed.2d 849 Terry STEWART, Director, Arizona Department of Correction, et al., Petitioners,v.Ramon MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL. No. 97-300. Supreme Court the United States Argued Feb. 25, 1998. Decided May 18, Syllabus * Respondent was convicted first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His direct appeals habeas petitions in state courts were unsuccessful, his first three federal denied on ground that he had not exhausted remedies. In fourth petition, claimed, inter alia, incompetent be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 399, 106 2595, 91 335. The District dismissed claim as premature, but granted writ other grounds. reversing granting writ, Ninth Circuit explained its ruling intended affect later litigation claim. On remand, respondent moved reopen fearing review might foreclosed by newly enacted Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which establishes a "gatekeeping'' mechanism for consideration "second or successive [federal] corpus applications,'' Felker Turpin, 518 651, 116 2333, 135 827; 28 U.S.C.A. §2244(b). Under AEDPA, prisoner must ask appropriate court district consider such an application, §2244(b)(3)(A), appeals' decision whether authorize application's filing is appealable cannot subject petition rehearing certiorari, §2244(b)(3)(E). motion. Subsequently, obtained warrant respondent's execution, found him fit executed. another motion claim, holding it lacked jurisdiction AEDPA. He then asked permission file application. That held §2244(b) did apply raises only competency not, therefore, need authorization Court. Held: 1.Because successive'' §2244(b), this has Circuit's judgment State's certiorari petition. fact second time provide relief does mean there two separate applications, necessarily There one application relief, ruled (or should have ruled) each when became ripe. Since entitled adjudication all claims presented earlier, undoubtedly reviewable, correctly required get before could heard. Accepting interpretation-that once individual fully litigated new treated successive-would far reaching seemingly perverse implications practice. This Court's cases never suggested whose failure exhaust remedies, who those remedies returned court, action A would adjudicate same standard govern made any Respondent's claim-previously premature-should manner, for, both situations, petitioner receive To hold otherwise dismissal technical procedural reasons, having nothing do with claim's merits, bar from ever obtaining review. reliance supra, contrary interpretation misplaced. Pp. ____-____. 2.For reasons finds jurisdiction, decided hearing merits P. ____. 118 F.3d 628, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, THOMAS, Bruce M. Ferg, Tucson, AZ, petitioners. Denise L. Young, Lakewood, OH, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 410, 2602, 335 (1986) we "the Eighth Amendment prohibits State inflicting penalty death upon insane.'' case, decide Martinez-Villareal's restrictions applications revised §2244 (Supp.1997). We conclude not. 2 counts unsuccessfully challenged conviction sentence appeal courts. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 702 P.2d 670, cert. denied, 474 975, 339, 88 324 (1985). series denied. also they contained yet been exhausted. 3 March 1993 court. addition raising claims, asserted Counsel urged dismiss premature. so Appeals reversed instruction enter denying Martinez-Villareal Lewis, 80 1301, 1309, n. (C.A.9 1996). 4 remand respondent, (AEDPA) foreclose earlier 1997 reassured ""no intention treating [Ford] petition.''' Stewart, 630 1997). Shortly thereafter, execution. Proceedings Superior mental condition. concluded rejected decision. 5 Federal conclusions reached procedures employed Petitioner responded jurisdiction. agreed petitioner, 16, 1997, over §2244(b)(3). 6 stayed execution request. It accordingly transferred member back F.3d, at 634-635. 7 resolve apparent conflict between Eleventh important question law. See, e.g., re Medina, 109 1556 (C.A.11 8 Before presented, however, case. Congress established applications'' ----, 2337, 827 (1996); An seeking move order directing §2244(b)(3)(A). 30 days grant file. §2244(b)(3)(D). "to shall certiorari.'' 9 If case leave without writ. what did. simply no today correct result therefore Section 2244(b) provides: 10 " (b)(1) section 2254 prior dismissed. 11 (2) unless- 12 (A) applicant shows relies rule constitutional law, retroactive collateral previously unavailable; 13 (B)(i) factual predicate discovered through exercise due diligence; 14 (ii) facts underlying if proven viewed light evidence whole, sufficient establish clear convincing that, error, reasonable factfinder guilty offense.'' 15 current request plainly (b)(1)(A). Even within either (b)(2)(B)'s exceptions, still required. 16 contends because already "fully-litigated plain meaning amended requires successive.'' Brief 12. reading statute, claims. Because acted subsequent relief. 17 But now seeks along 1993. acting resolved one. subsequently At point sentence, issued unquestionably ripe, determination Those competent, court's determination. 18 may 19 correct, practice far-reaching perverse. Picard Connor, 404 270, 275, 92 509, 512, 438 (1971), said: 20 settled since Ex Parte Royall, 117 241, [6 734, 29 L.Ed. 868] (1886), normally available judicial will entertain . exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine, codified U.S.C. §§2254(b) (c), reflects policy federal-state comity follows, course, fairly courts, exhaustion requirement satisfied. 21 Later, Rose Lundy, 455 522, 102 1198, 1205, 71 379 (1982), went further "a containing unexhausted claims.'' none our expounding doctrine where these 22 believe here-previously manner returns after exhausting True, are identical; imminent determined time. ex rel. Barnes Gilmore, 968 F.Supp. 384, 385 (N.D.Ill.1997) ("If continues nonpayment $5 fee constrained petition''); Marsh Northern California, 1995 WL 23942 (N.D.Cal., Jan. 9, 1995) ("Because paid nor submitted signed affidavit poverty, prejudice''); Taylor Mendoza, 1994 698493 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 12, 1994).* 23 places great (1996), think stated "new constitute modified res judicata rule, restraint used called "abuse writ.''' U.S., 664, S.Ct., 2340. certain barred form judicata. brought timely fashion, ripe resolution until now. 24 Thus, certiorari. find deciding 25 Affirmed. 26 whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. 27 axiomatic power award [of corpus] States, given written law.'' parte Bollman, Cranch 75, 94, 554 (1807) (Marshall, J.). And impossible conceive language more clearly precludes renewed competency-to-be-executed than law us here: "claim dismissed.'' §2244(b)(1) (Supp.1997) (emphasis added). flouts unmistakable statute avoid calls "perverse'' result. Ante, __. about commands, except contradicts pre-existing judge-made precisely purpose change. received full appointed experts 4-day evidentiary hearing, "aware punished crime aware impending punishment '' App. 172. appealed Arizona, accepted sought denial say deny round time-consuming lower-federal-court sentence-because means forgoing arises issues-is state-court determinations always merely indeed principle imaginative habeas-corpus jurisprudence established, natural Lest forget, even create inferior Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 9; III, §1, let alone invest them plenary convictions. much history, points out, post, __, prisoners validly constituted general criminal recourse all. See Wright West, 505 277, 285-286, 112 2482, 2486-2487, 120 225 (1992) (opinion seems me removed second-time treat proceedings prelude lower-court supreme-court determinations. latter regime AEDPA intentionally revised-to require extraordinary showings can take trip around extended district-court-to-Supreme-Court track. wrong reshape revision very lathe designed repair. Today's resembles 1920s effectively Clayton Act, eliminate federal-court injunctions against union strikes picketing, "restrained proper.'' T. Powell, Control Over Issue Injunctions Labor Disputes, Acad. Pol. Sci. Proc. 37, 74 (1928). criticizing examples Gefuhlsjurisprudenz (and insisting necessity preferring Gefuhl legislator Gefuuhl judge''), Dean Landis recalled Dicey's trenchant observation ""judge-made occasionally represents day yesterday.''' Landis, Note "Statutory Interpretation,'' 43 Harv. L.Rev. 886, 888 (1930), quoting A. Dicey, Law Opinion England 369 (1926). As hard swallow, yesterday's enactment curbed prodigality Great Writ. words applied nicely emerges present case: "The mutilated [AEDPA] bears ample testimony "day yesterday' judges insist today.'' L.Rev., 892. I dissent. 31 SCALIA 32 From 1986 1991, relief; 1993, presenting, (1986), competent Finding some procedurally defaulted, others merit, decision, fifth again arguing application,'' respectfully 33 Unlike begin statute. 2244(b)(1) provides (Supp.1998). "application'' "putting to, placing before, person. act making something.'' Black's Dictionary 98-99 (6th ed. 1990); see Webster's New Collegiate 97 (1991) (application "request, request''). (the concedes much), placed corpus. Once relief-including executed-remained thus necessary "pu[t] to'' "plac[ed] before'' (The certainly raise sua sponte.) distinct requests 34 "presented'' applications. "present'' bring introduce into presence someone'' lay (as charge) object inquiry.'' 930 (1991). introduced argument application.'' §2244(b)(1). 35 offered disregarding unpersuasive. Conceding [t]his claim,'' ante, nevertheless concludes really "one relief.'' Ibid. abeyance longer 1997. best, then, effort (which most definitely "application'') statutory requirements recently closely related context: 36 [A]prisoner's recall mandate basis regarded purposes Otherwise, petitioners evade relitigation §2244(b)(1), §2244(b)(2).'' Calderon Thompson, 1489, 1500, --- ---- (1998). 37 just way, permitted §2244(b)'s prohibitions moving 38 "Ford remedies,'' "in claim.'' Implicit reasoning assumption exhausts sure, "none ha[s] suggested'' situation because, 1996 110 Stat. 1218, long "presented determined, §2244(a) added), "adjudicated,'' previous Claims neither "determined'' "adjudicated.'' pre-AEDPA permitting says considered successive. 39 successive, altogether different many adjudicated. former situation, dismisses prejudice, 520-522, 1204-1205, argued filed. contrast, addresses adjudicates it, "application,'' future successive.''1 adjudicated "application.''2 40 Ultimately, driven sees "far-reaching perverse'' literal Such concerns my view, override statute's meaning. extent motivate repeating right Congress, expanded availability expansion, challenge rendered custody. obviously challenge.3 effect precluding Nation's history noncognizable hardly described "perverse.'' 41 Accordingly, considers application-because exhaust-or -because time-his "second'' (following first) "successive'' fourth) syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. prisoner's initial Therefore, occasion application'' position one, presumably (Supp.1998) precluded operates prejudice dismissal, concedes, §2244(b)(2)(B)'s exceptions additional reason why cognizable habeas. "only custody violation Constitution laws treaties States.'' §2254. legality sentence; challenges whether) carried out.

Category: 0