Banister v. Davis
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 1, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 1, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Kagan
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. A state prisoner is entitled to one fair opportunity to seek federal habeas relief from his conviction. But he may not usually make a "second or successive habeas corpus application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The question here is whether a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a habeas court's judgment qualifies as such a successive petition. We hold it does not. A Rule 59(e) motion is instead part and parcel of the first habeas proceeding. I This case is about two procedural rules. First, Rule 59(e) applies in federal civil litigation generally. (Habeas proceedings, for those new to the area, are civil in nature. See Fisher v. Baker , 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142 (1906).) The Rule enables a party to request that a district court reconsider a just-issued judgment. Second, the so-called gatekeeping provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), governs federal habeas proceedings. It sets stringent limits on second or successive habeas applications. We say a few words about each before describing how the courts below applied them here. A Rule 59(e) allows a litigant to file a "motion to alter or amend a judgment." The time for doing so is short-28 days from entry of the judgment, with no possibility of an…
Excerpt of a 63,264-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.