Legal Document

517 U.S. 314116 S.Ct. 1293134 L.Ed.2d 440 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESLONCHARv.THOMAS, WARDENCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-5015. Supreme Argued December 4, 1995 Decided April 1, 1996 Syllabus* Petitioner Lonchar was sentenced death murder nine years ago. In following affirmance his conviction and sentence, sister brother each filed ``next friend'' state habeas petitions, which opposed, filed, then had dismissed, a petition. Shortly before scheduled execution, he another When it denied, this ``eleventh hour'' federal petition, first. Reasoning that Habeas Corpus Rule 9, not some generalized equitable authority dismiss, governed case, District held Lonchar's conduct in waiting almost six file petition did constitute an independent basis rejecting granted stay permit time consideration other grounds dismissal raised by State. The vacated stay. It doctrines 9 applied, relying chiefly on Court's per curiam order Gomez v. Dist. Northern Dist Cal., 503 U. S. 653. Setting aside Rules traditional doctrines, court concluded merit relief. Held: 1. principle Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, applies when district is faced with request first case: if cannot dismiss merits obligated address must issue prevent case from becoming moot. If lacks directly dispose merits, would abuse its discretion attempting achieve same result indirectly denying Since claims certainly seem substantial enough under 4 State does argue contrary, courts below correctly assumed could be denied unless properly subject dismissal. This has displaced Barefoot's rationale one permitting denial cases, even merits. involve lower no or neither discussed nor cited Barefoot, much less repudiated rationale. Pp. 4-7. 2. erred dismissing special ad hoc "equitable" reasons encompassed within relevant statutes, Federal Rules, prior precedents. First, history Great Writ reveals, individual judges writs reasons, but, rather, gradual evolution more formal judicial, statutory, rules-based law regularize thereby narrow can freely exercise. See, e.g., McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 479-489. Second, fact writ been called remedy, see, Gomez, supra, at 653-654, authorize ignore body rules, Rather, "courts equity rules precedents than law," Missouri Jenkins, 515 ___, ___ (Thomas, J., concurring). arguments against departure settled particularly strong issue, since such denies petitioner protections entirely. See Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 95. Third, 9(a)-which permits "it appears . prejudiced ability respond delay [the petition's] filing"-specifically addresses factor led bCourt asked to, not, make finding prejudice whereas Rule's makes plain requirement represents critical element balancing interests undertaken Congress framers, may undermine through exercise background powers. Bank Nova Scotia States, 487 250, 255. Fourth, contrary Appeals' view, departures purport work significant change applicable petitions. Fifth, lead different conclusion. 654, and, Sawyer Whitley, 505 333, 341, n. 7, distinguished. complexity inherent developing fair effective minimize harms created last-minute petitions capital cases offers practical caution judicial attempt, outside framework fashion reforms concerning Sixth, warranted circumstances including "next friend" siblings, filing later withdrawal own motive part execution. expresses view about proper outcome Rules' application case. 7-18. 58 F. 3d 590, remanded. Breyer, delivered opinion Court, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. concurring judgment, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Justice Breyer Court. 1 asks us decide whether general beyond those embodied We doing so primary favoring "eleventh hour" serious delay. A deals specifically 28 Section(s) 2254 9(a) (permitting filing"). And, our Rule, power create exceptions should have determined petition's appropriate. 2 * Larry He corpus-his corpus petition-on June 28, 1995, day To understand procedural significance nature here features we consider context earlier proceedings, which, ease exposition, divide into five stages: Stage One: Trial, Appeal, Execution Date: 1987-1990. 1987, convicted murdering three people electrocution. mandatory appeal sentence 1988. trial judge issued warrant week March 23, 1990. Throughout these proceedings said wanted die refused cooperate lawyer attend trial. also attempted (unsuccessfully) waive appeal, declined any collateral attacks wrote asking execution date. 3 Two: Sister's "Next Friend" Habeas: 1990- February 1993. Two days sister, Chris Kellog, court, claiming incompetent. opposed action eventually courts, appellate levels, competent dismissed again warrant, 24, Three: 1993-May 1995. After told him brother, Milan, threatening kill himself because authorized obtained subsequently changed mind want proceed. Although lawyers objected incompetent decision, without prejudice. 5 Four: Brother's 20- Three court. it. Within days, Milan's met fate as sister's That say, all found 6 Five: Current 1995-Present. Immediately thereafter, after discussions lawyers, containing 22 claims, challenged method wished pursue but litigating them only hope lethal injection donate organs. stayed briefly, then, two later, immediately set forth claims. 7 stressing what "inequitable conduct" years, until last minute, held, 9's "abuse writ" applied "second successive" Lonchar's. 9(b) ("A second successive finds failure assert constituted writ") (emphasis added). therefore State's motion dismiss. next Circuit 590 (1995). pointed out "based holding exclusively 9." Id., 592. "equitable 9" 653 (1992). 3d, 593. setting that, "Lonchar relief." Ibid. As mentioned above, certiorari may, circumstances, valid reasons" listed statutes well established II 10 discuss preliminary matter. vacates stay, believe, however, difference. is, vacating lawful lawful. By bringing considering just 11 previously considered, slightly context, allow mooted though lacked 880 (1983), considered standard granting pending stated: 12 "When certificate probable cause appeals, afforded opportunity appeals appeal. Accordingly, where necessary moot petitioner's grant disposition condemned prisoner obtains initial appeal." 893-894. 13 believe Of course, summarily plainly face exhibits annexed entitled relief court," required fails meet "substantial showing right," see S., true constraints due process, expedite 894-895. 14 contrary. being so, were correct assume App. 62, 63-64; 15 concurrence argues decision (1992), statement "court deciding 654. understands do rest supports 16 Instead, concedes, post, 5, writ." id., 653-654. involved fifth attempt secure review, indicated stays "[s]econd present issue," likely "`a inmate might use repeated mere delaying tactic,'" danger specially recognized addressed Rules. 895. Finally, concurrence's reading seriously conflicts well-settled treatment decline adopt far-reaching interpretation order, especially concern (or cite) explicitly repudiate III 17 turn, main question: Could 9? conclude not. 18 law. 479-489 (1991); 892; Kuhlmann Wilson, 477 436, 451 (1986) (plurality opinion); Sanders 373 (1963); Townsend Sain, 372 293, 313 (1963). times, followed comparatively simple occasionally disregarding complex res judicata, McCleskey, 479, they exercised light most basic purpose, avoiding abuses government, say king's imprisonment referring matter L. Yackle, Postconviction Remedies pp. 9-11 (1981); W. Duker, Constitutional History 4-6 (1980); Church, Treatise 1-46, 2-40 (2d ed. 1893). evolved instrument now demands jurisdiction, re Coy, 127 731, 756-758 (1888), constitutional fairness, Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 243 (1963), Congress, writers, developed principles Those seek maintain courts' freedom writ, aptly described "highest safeguard liberty," Smith Bennett, 365 708, 712 (1961), while serious, improper delay, expense, complexity, interference interest "finality" legal processes. Withrow Williams, 507 680, 698 (1993) (O'Connor, dissenting part); 490-492; Reed Ross, 468 (1984). These are precedents, practices control writ's reflect objectives (sometimes controversial), normally make, will resolved question. Brecht Abrahamson, 619, 632-633 (1993). 19 "There thing Law, Writs Grace Favour issuing Judges." Opinion Corpus, Wilm. 77, 87, 97 Eng. Rep. 29, 36 (1758) (Wilmot, J.). law." -, - (1995) (slip op., 15) Albemarle Paper Co. Moody, 422 405, 417 (1975); Federalist 78, p. 528 (J. Cooke 1961). Selden many ago, alternative chancellor's conscience measure equity, arbitrary uncertain measuring distance length foot. J. Story, Commentaries Equity Jurisprudence (13th 1886). 20 why "a evolving informed controlled historical usage, statutory developments, decisions." 489 And reaffirmed importance, "`in preclude individualized enforcement Constitution parts Nation,'" "`lay[ing] down problem standards directions govern Judges applications prisoners Courts.'" 496 (quoting Brown Allen, 344 443, 501-502 (1953) (opinion Frankfurter, J.)). 21 all, guide reduce uncertainty, avoid unfair surprise, disparate similar help litigants, State, whose often further. Kuhlmann, 451; Townsend, 313. Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 750 (1991) (barring procedurally defaulted absent fundamental miscarriage justice); Teague Lane, 288, 299-316 (1989) opinion) based certain "new rules" law); Rose Lundy, 455 509, 522 (1982) ("[A] both unexhausted exhausted claims"). issue. Dismissal matter, entirely, risking injury important human liberty. 95 (1869) (the "has centuries esteemed best sufficient defence personal freedom"); Withrow, 700 part) (decisions involving limitation "warrant restraint"). Even petitions-which pose greater threat discovery unconstitutional punishments-this careful writ. supra. 23 dealing themselves provide ample discretionary tailor quickly, efficiently, fairly lack merit, preserving extensive raising questions. For instance, noted response 4. Moreover, standard, still "take deems appropriate." Advisory Committee's Note clear provision 24 "designed afford flexibility either answer inappropriate example, respondent upon information furnished respondent, show already decided court; failed exhaust remedies; custody meaning 2254; situations, grounds, burdening necessity substantive certain. Or allegations requiring appear arguable merit." C., 478. 25 once ordered. expansion record facilitate need evidentiary hearing. 7. Discovery available "the good shown grants leave." 6(a). degree determining hold 8(a); 318; Keeney Tamayo-Reyes, 504 11-12 Thus, cf. 894-895, quickly meritless right questions their thoroughly 26 specific 9(a), factor-delay-that reasons." says: 27 "Delayed officer shows knowledge reasonable diligence prejudicial occurred." "delayed petition." language requires, condition dismissal, "prejudice," make. (Because disavows reliance "prejudice" justify petition). develop rule "petition dismissed" "delay filing" precondition. 29 But framers 255 (1988) ("The balance struck between societal costs rights accused casually overlooked `because elected analyze question supervisory power.'" Payner, 447 727, 736 (1980)). indicates very maxim relied acting Rules-the disentitle relief," 592-was taken account drafted included requirement. 484. draft 2074, focused rejected, removing eased burden presuming years. Compare Procedure: Communication Chief Transmitting Forms Governing Proceedings Under Sections 2255 Title H. R. Doc. 94-464, 38-39 (1976), Act Sept. 1976, Pub. 94-426, 2(9), 90 Stat. 1335. 94-1471, (1976) ("[I]t unsound policy require defendant overcome presumption prejudice"). Cf. McCarthy Madigan, 140, 144 (1992) (Even area, exhaustion, considerable authority, "appropriate deference Congress' prescribe scheme claim heard requires fashioning exhaustion manner consistent congressional intent scheme"). 30 recognize there debate balances competing interests. Judicial Conference, Ad Hoc Committee Capital Cases, Report Proposal 6, 18-21 (hereinafter Powell Report) (suggesting statute limitations petitions); American Bar Association, Toward More Just Effective System Review Death Penalty Cases 29-30 (1990) ABA (same). But, effectiveness affirm, deny, applicability. debate's focus reveals institutional inappropriateness amending effect, exception, rather legislation rulemaking process. Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 265 ("[D]espite attempts recent yet actions. lightly new end") (citation omitted); Appendix (listing 80 bills proposed Vasquez, none adopted). 31 heavily that: 32 "Even assume, Harris bar claim, Whether framed [42 C.] 1983 action, seeks remedy." 33 statement, understood mean refusing reasons. explained Harris, four argued raise "method execution" like McCleskey's doctrine, apply. quoted simply says apply, vehicle seeking underlying doctrine-avoiding, among things, "last-minute manipulate process," 654; 484-485, 491-493-would apply suit challenging regardless technical form action. 34 "[a] made statements cases. (judge resolve doubts petitioners who filings minute obtaining give execution"); Herrera Collins, 506 390, 425-426 35 9(b). 2244(b) (authorizing applicant deliberately withheld newly asserted ground otherwise abused gives content notion writ," mentioned. statements, therefore, effort follow Indeed, try devise sensible way supplementing devices prove difficult. __, review quite strong. given importance deprive inmates access fair. prominent bodies charged proposals reform out, complicated, issues over dates, needed remedies, common practice substituting specialized counsel habeas, investigate (such ineffective assistance counsel) direct 26-29, 114-134; ("In system employs artificial dates catalyst, eleventh hours minutes, because, virtually every level, imminent"); ("[P]risoners obtain qualified imminent"). bodies, consequently, comprehensive interrelated changes, 5-39; 5-7, legislative proposals. 3, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995); 729, 2703, 623, 735, 37 case-other delay-do result. brought beside point. conspire siblings prevailed opposition. 22, 35, 48. aggravate mitigate during 38 similarly At most, assertion potential state-law litigation Coleman, 729-732. (despite apparent agreement "without prejudice," 34, 161-163) bar. free litigate remand. 39 Nor method. requested resentencing, 362, hear them. Normally look behind states determine comparative weight litigant places various subjective claim. antitrust complaint environmental suddenly become invalid subjectively indifferent receiving relief, instead primarily wants please her family revenge. importantly, motivations risks adding litigation, (about motives) unanswerable encourage reward disingenuous. Murray Carrier, 478, (rejecting test "cause" default, "federal routinely hearings prompted counsel's question"). 40 sum, examined according considerations framework. We, express 41 judgment remanded further opinion. 42 43 djq whom Thomas join, judgment. 44 I agree reversed, am disagreement reasoning write separately. disagree lawful." Ante, misreads ignores 45 corpus; dismisses distinction "preliminary matter," "makes difference," my reviewing anything "preliminary." inasmuch likelihood success entered. Hilton Braunskill, 481 770, 776 (1987). sets 9(b), abusive. 46 "if 9(a). 47 merit; purposes application, undisputed substantial. Because first, deny majority, ante, 12, us, likewise rule's elements satisfied. engaged determination depriving adequate otherwise. 48 However, applicant's Hilton, 776. little determination, understandably so. remembered governing corpus, 2241-2255, enacted 1948, "to reexamine state," 459 (1953), long declare penalty unconstitutional, Gregg Georgia, 428 153 Proffitt Florida, 242 Jurek Texas, 262 (1976). difficult anticipated arise sentences presumptively valid, "reexamined" challenges imposed. 49 typical noncapital relatively easy consulting ordinary stays. Rarely, ever, passed request, usually chance confined pursuant final rendered 2254(d). If, entertaining awards "stay equities" shift favor petitioner, enlarged demonstrate equities 774. 50 easily managed adapted files sufficiently advance timely fashion, disturbing date ruling if, customary revised accordingly. feel adequately naturally disposed, here, enter enable so.1 doing, imposed conviction, tentative assessment violates right. Unless eleventh-hour account, late induce disregard federal-state comity "frustrate States' sovereign punish offenders," Engle Isaac, 456 107, 128 (1982), avoided filing.2 clearly precluded. 51 demonstrated how manipulative uses behalf Robert Alton California prisoner, alleging violated Eighth Amendment. Amendment "an obvious 467 (1991), successive-petition alone, not: 52 remedy. take proceeding Harris' manipulation. decade There reason abusive compounded 653-654 (citations omitted). 53 Our confirms "abusive delay"-waiting submit submitted earlier-and "obvious manipulation"-in powers defiance precluding merits-constitute prayer important, misconduct "[e]ven if" tip scales decisively merits.3 54 applying inequitable criticized, manipulation, application. equivocate said: "Equity [an] 654 admitted stronger first-time rise additional counseling merits: frustrating execute exploiting judicata corpus. 491-492 (1991). follow, never criticized Gomez; means refusal 55 majority distinguish "not 6. wholly implausible, paragraph petitioner. relation successive, superfluous. 56 support relies (1983). arose contexts. presented 887 (announcing appropriate death-sentenced petitioner"); 891 (affirming "ruled [Barefoot's] appeal"). different: course extent depends belief somehow validate contrary: 57 "The role secondary limited. forums relitigate trials. procedures adopted orderly entitlements irrespective contribution toward uncovering error." 887-888. "rationale" brook seasonable warned indefinitely." 887. 59 nonetheless disentitled stay; solely dismissed. "abused rely concluding 61-62. 60 findings supporting go reversal order. next-friend "neither filing." 17. blamed having competence establish much. Whitmore Arkansas, 495 149, 165 (1990). brother's desire protect him, although relatives colluding putting keep options open future. culpable "[i]t paradigmatic base erroneous Schlup Delo, 513 2) concurring) (citing Cooter & Gell Hartmarx Corp., 384, 405 (1990)), necessarily Reconsideration concur reversal. APPENDIX TO OPINION 61 proposing introduced year all. 2301, 99th 2d (1986); 2850, 72, 100th (1987); 73, 1333, 3777, 260, 1285, 1970, 5217, (1988); 1090, 101st (1989); 1953, 2709, 3119, 88, 271, 1225, 1st. 1228, 1971, 3918, (1990); 4079, 4737, 4820, 5055, 5269, 2245, 2695, 18, 102d 365, 1400, 3371, 19, 148, 620, 635, Cong, 1151, 1241, 1335, 2305, (1992); 3292, 2217, 103d (1993); 2321, 2847, 2872, 3131, 3315, 8, 38, 47, 1356, 1441, 1488, 1607, 1657, 4018, (1994); 4055, 4092, 4197, 4848, 5008, 5134, 2389, 920, 816, syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. concerned prospect "order record," discovery, "whether hearing," generally "expedite proceedings." 11. tools useless, leaves attributable scheduling postconviction manner, deliberate capable distinguishing situations. class-action suit, member. note class plaintiffs appeals. Fierro 77 301 (CA9 1996).

Classification Label: 0