James Walker, Warden, et al., Petitioners v. Charles W. Martin (562 U.S. 307)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 23, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 562 U.S. 307 · 131 S. Ct. 1120
- Docket
- No. 09-996
- Argued
- November 29, 2010
- Decided
- February 23, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg (wrote), Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan
Oral argument transcript and advocates · Opinion on Justia
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns California’s time limitation on applications for postconviction (habeas corpus) relief. The question presented: Does California’s timeliness requirement qualify as an independent state ground adequate to bar habeas corpus relief in federal court? California does not employ fixed statutory deadlines to determine the timeliness of a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus. Instead, California directs petitioners to file known claims “as promptly as the circumstances allow.” In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 765, n. 5, 855 P. 2d 729, 738, n. 5 (1993). Petitioners are further instructed to state when they first learned of the asserted claims and to explain why they did not seek postconviction relief sooner. In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780, 959 P. 2d 311, 317-318 (1998). Claims substantially delayed without justification may be denied as untimely. Ibid.; Clark, 5 Cal. 4th, at 765, n. 5, 855 P. 2d, at 738, n. 5. California courts signal that a habeas petition is denied as untimely by citing the controlling decisions, i. e., Clark and Robbins. A spare order denying a petition without explanation or citation ordinarily ranks as a disposition on the merits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7; see Harrington v. Richter, ante, at 99. California courts may elect to pretermit the question whether a petition is timely and simply…
Excerpt of a 24,690-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.