{"id":1226,"date":"2020-06-01T08:47:50","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T15:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226"},"modified":"2020-06-01T10:00:42","modified_gmt":"2020-06-01T17:00:42","slug":"supreme-court-further-bogs-down-habeas-corpus-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister<\/em> v. Davis<\/em>, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.<\/p>\n

The actual issue in Banister<\/em> was whether a motion in the trial court to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 59(e) extends the time to appeal the trial court’s judgment to the court of appeals. It does in regular civil litigation. If one begins with the premise that the FRCP applies to the extent it is not directly contradicted by any statute or rule specific to habeas corpus, the answer is obviously yes. The majority proceeds on that premise, and the conclusion follows.<\/p>\n

Habeas corpus exists in a twilight zone between civil and criminal procedure. Originally, habeas corpus proceedings were quite simple matters and easily disposed of. The proceeding was an action by the prisoner against the jailer contending that his imprisonment was illegal. If the jailer’s response was that he was holding the prisoner pursuant to a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, that was the end of the case. As long as the court had jurisdiction, habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for appeal to attack the judgment. The scope of habeas review widened over the years, and the proceedings have become more complex.<\/p>\n

Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court today disposes of the key question in two sentences plus citations.<\/p>\n

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally govern habeas proceedings. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 81(a)(4). They give way, however, if and to the extent \u201cinconsistent with any statutory provisions or [habeas-specific] rules.\u201d 28 U. S. C. \u00a72254 Rule 12….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh, no. There is much more to it than that.<\/p>\n

Rule 81(a)(4) goes all the way back to the original drafting of the FRCP in the 1930s, when habeas corpus proceedings were still largely handled summarily. Here is what the present rule says (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

(4) These rules apply to proceedings for habeas corpus and for quo warranto to the extent that the practice in those proceedings:<\/p>\n

(A) is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and<\/p>\n

(B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court’s decision today effectively reads (B) out of the rule. It is not mentioned in the opinion. But it is there for a reason. The drafters of the FRCP never intended to overhaul habeas corpus procedure and change it to conform to the cumbersome process of regular civil litigation. They only said that to the extent it already followed prior civil practice, it would now (i.e., from Sept. 1938 on) follow the new civil practice.<\/p>\n

Fast forward four decades. The Supreme Court promulgated, and Congress amended and approved in 1977, a set of rules specifically for habeas corpus cases. Habeas Rule 11, since renumbered 12, addressed the same issue as FRCP 81(a)(4). Here is the present Rule 12 (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may<\/em> be applied to a proceeding under these rules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rule 12 does not say “apply.” It does not say “shall be applied.” It says “may<\/em> be applied.” That word was carefully chosen. The rule specifically says that FRCP rules that are inconsistent with habeas-specific rules or statutes will not be applied; as to all other rules their application is permitted but not required.<\/p>\n

The majority just runs roughshod over this important distinction. Justice Alito, dissenting, discusses the precedents in which the Supreme Court has recognized the “very limited role of Habeas Rule 12” on pages 7-9.<\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit’s rationale in this case was that a FRCP 59(e) motion had been misused to file what was, in effect, a successive habeas corpus petition. Rule 60(b)(6) has become routinely misused for that purpose. The Supreme Court has said that federal courts can treat a 60(b) as a successive petition, subject to Congress’s strict limitation, when it is so misused. Yet many federal courts have no interest at all in expediting habeas corpus cases, and they do not use that authority anywhere near enough. Misuse of 60(b) is rampant, and we can now expect the same for misuse of 59(e).<\/p>\n

Justice Alito notes the larger problem in his dissent:<\/p>\n

Habeas petitions occupy an outsized place on federal dockets. See infra<\/em>, at 13. Their efficient resolution not only preserves federal judicial capacity but removes the cloud of federal review from state-court judgments. The federal habeas provisions create a procedural regime that differs sharply from the regime that generally applies in civil cases, and the habeas statute displaces any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that is \u201cinconsistent with\u201d its provisions. 28 U. S. C. \u00a72254 Rule 12 (Habeas Rule 12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The use of civil rules to bog down what should be an expedited proceeding requires a close look and amendment of the Habeas Rules. A rule from the FRCP should not be applied when it is inconsistent with the needed dispatch in habeas corpus, not merely when it conflicts with a specific statute or rule.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-habeas-corpus","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-01T15:47:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-06-01T17:00:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-01T15:47:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-01T17:00:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2020-06-01T15:47:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-06-01T17:00:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226","name":"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-06-01T15:47:50+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-01T17:00:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1226#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Further Bogs Down Habeas Corpus Cases"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1226"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1228,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1226\/revisions\/1228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}