by brian r. means

INTRODUCTION TO

HABEAS CORPUS

A Primer on Federal Collateral Review

2022

By Brian R. Means

About This Book

Habeas corpus “is, without doubt, one of the most complex and troubling areas of federal law.” 1 Its principles—“informed and controlled by historical usage, statutory developments and judicial decisions”—are “complex and evolving.”2

This book was written with the goal of explaining in plain terms the principles of federal postconviction review, and providing practitioners with a starting place for their legal research. There are seventeen chapters divided into five sections, each addressing a specific area of collateral review:

● Section I, Introduction, The Big Picture—an overview of the postconviction review process and development of federal habeas doctrines.

● Section II, Getting into Federal Court, Prerequisites to Obtaining Relief—the various statutory and jurisdictional requirements to obtaining federal review of state and federal criminal convictions.

● Section III, Defenses, Barriers to Obtaining Relief—the primary bars to obtaining habeas relief, including exhaustion of state remedies, the one-year statute of limitations, procedural defaults, and nonretroactive principles.

● Section IV, Adjudicating the Merits, Getting to the Crux of the Matter—the process of adjudicating the merits of claims, including application of the deferential review standards imposed by AEDPA.

1 Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1039 (9th Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, J., dissenting). 2 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 489, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).

● Section V, Post-Ruling Practice—the remedies available to challenge district court rulings in the district court.

Thousands of readers have used the prior edition of this book to navigate the complexities of postconviction review, and I am confident that you will find this new edition helpful in unraveling the Gordian knot called habeas corpus.

OTHER CRIMINAL LAW PUBLICATIONS BY

THIS AUTHOR

Postconviction Remedies (2021 edition) (2946 pages). A one-of-a-kind treatise that provides a comprehensive analysis of the remedies available to both state and federal prisoners challenging their convictions following appeal, with particular attention on federal court remedies and the sweeping changes enacted by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Contact your West representative for more information or call 1-800-344-5008. Federal Habeas Manual (2021 edition) (2182 pages). A comprehensive practitioner guide to federal habeas corpus and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. Contact your West representative for more information or call 1-800-344-5008. Postconviction Remedies Note. A semiannual note summarizing recent decisions involving federal habeas corpus. The Note is available at no charge. If you would like to receive the Note via email, contact the author at [email protected] to have your name added to the distribution list.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS BOOK ...................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................V

ABOUT THE AUTHOR ................................................................ VII

Section I

Introduction

The Big Picture

Chapter One: Postconviction Review .................................... 1

Chapter Two: Federal Collateral Review ............................ 15

Chapter Three: The History of Federal Collateral

Review ........................................................................................... 29

A. Development of Habeas Corpus ...................................... 30

B. The Future of Habeas Corpus .......................................... 43

Chapter Four: Habeas and Civil Rights Actions

Compared...................................................................................... 59

Section II

Getting into Federal Court

Prerequisites to Obtaining Relief

Chapter Five: Jurisdiction ....................................................... 85

A. State Prisoners. ................................................................... 86

B. Federal Prisoners ................................................................ 90

Chapter Six: Statutory Requirement .................................. 101

A. Custody .............................................................................. 102

1. Early development ...................................................... 103

2. Custody defined ........................................................... 106

3. Each claim considered independently...................... 108

4. Federal prisoners—additional requirement ............ 108

5. State prisoners—additional requirement ................. 108

6. Custody and sentencing ............................................. 111

B. Federal Questions ............................................................ 116

1. Constitutional violations ............................................ 116

2. Federal law violations ................................................. 117

3. Treaty violations .......................................................... 117

Chapter Seven: Cognizable Claims..................................... 126

A. Fourth Amendment ......................................................... 127

B. Actual Innocence .............................................................. 131

C. Ineffectiveness of Counsel ............................................. 133

D. Pre-plea Violations .......................................................... 135

E. Prior Convictions ............................................................. 139

Chapter Eight: Mootness ....................................................... 149

A. Early Development .......................................................... 150

B. Present-Day Mootness .................................................... 153

Chapter Nine: Successive Applications for Relief ......... 163

A. Development of the Law ................................................ 164

B. The Statutes ....................................................................... 169

C. “Second or Successive” Defined ................................... 171

D. Restrictions ....................................................................... 185

1. Previously adjudicated claims .................................... 186

2. New claims ................................................................... 190

a. New constitutional rules ....................................... 190

b. Newly-discovered evidence of innocence ......... 200

E. Procedure .......................................................................... 212

Section III

Defenses

Barriers to Relief

Chapter Ten: Exhaustion of State Court Remedies ...... 225


B. The Statute ........................................................................ 230

C. “Fair Presentation” .......................................................... 231

1. Appropriate state courts ........................................... 232

2. Nature of the claim .................................................... 234

3. Proper presentation ................................................... 238

D. Changes in the Law ......................................................... 240

E. Lack of State Corrective Process ................................... 244

F. Procedure .......................................................................... 245

Chapter Eleven: Filing Deadlines ....................................... 255


B. The Statutes ....................................................................... 257

C. Commencement ............................................................... 259

1. Finality on direct appeal ............................................. 259

2. Impediments ................................................................ 267

3. New retroactive rules .................................................. 268

4. New factual predicates ............................................... 270

D. Statutory Tolling .............................................................. 272

1. “Properly filed” applications ..................................... 273

2. Applications for state collateral review .................... 274

3. “Pertinent judgment or claim” .................................. 277

4. “Pending” ..................................................................... 277

E. Equitable Tolling .............................................................. 283

1. Background .................................................................. 283

2. Development of the Doctrine: Cases Involving

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ............................. 286

3. Application of the Equitable Tolling Doctrine

in Other Contexts ...................................................... 298

F. Meeting the One-Year Deadline .................................... 312

G. Relation Back Principles ................................................. 312

H. Actual Innocence Exception ......................................... 315

I. Procedure ............................................................................ 317

Chapter Twelve: Procedural Defaults ................................ 325


B. State Court Default .......................................................... 330

C. Independence and Adequacy ......................................... 337

D. Escaping Procedural Defaults ....................................... 343

E. Procedure .......................................................................... 356

Chapter Thirteen: New Rules of Criminal Procedure .. 363


B. The Teague Rule ................................................................. 372

C. Teague Post-AEDPA ........................................................ 386

D. Procedure .......................................................................... 387

Section IV

Adjudicating the Merits

Getting to the Crux of the Matter

Chapter Fourteen: Deciding the Merits of the Claim ... 397


B. The Statute ........................................................................ 401

C. Merits Adjudications ........................................................ 404

D. “Clearly Established” Precedent ................................... 419

E. “Contrary To” .................................................................. 432

F. “Unreasonable Application Of” .................................... 435

Chapter Fifteen: Resolving Factual Issues ...................... 457


B. The Statute ........................................................................ 461

C. Merits Adjudications ........................................................ 463

D. Deferential Review .......................................................... 465

E. Factual Development ...................................................... 467

Chapter Sixteen: Harmless Error ........................................ 475


B. Collateral Review Standard ............................................. 479

C. The Role of AEDPA ....................................................... 482

D. Cumulative Error ............................................................. 488

Section V

Post-Adjudication

Another Bite at the Apple

Chapter Seventeen: Post-Ruling Practice ......................... 509

A. Beyond the Habeas Statutes ........................................... 509

B. Motions for Reconsideration ........................................ 510

C. Rule 52(b) and 59 Motions ............................................ 513

1. Motion to amend findings ....................................... 513

2. Motion for new trial ................................................. 513

3. Motion to amend or alter judgment ....................... 516

D. Rule 60 ............................................................................. 518

1. The rule ....................................................................... 518

2. The provisions discussed ......................................... 520

(a) Clerical errors ..................................................... 520

(b) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect ................................................................. 522

(c) Newly discovered evidence .............................. 523

(d) Fraud, misrepresentation, or other

misconduct .......................................................... 524

(e) Void judgments .................................................. 525

(f) Judgment satisfied, released, or discharged;

prior judgment vacated ...................................... 527

(g) The catch-all provision ...................................... 528

3. Second or successive rule ........................................ 531

C.

INDEX ................................................................................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................. iii

Section III

DEFENSES

Barriers to Relief

CHAPTER TEN

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT

REMEDIES

“Exhaustion,” as that term is used in habeas parlance,

is shorthand for the requirement that state prisoners

must present their federal claims to all appropriate state

courts before seeking federal habeas relief. The purpose

for this requirement is essentially two-fold: to avoid

federal interference with state processes, and to preserve

the state courts’ role in making and enforcing federal law.

Although exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement,

A comprehensive discussion of exhaustion principles can be found at Federal Habeas Manual, Chapter 9C (West 2021), and Postconviction Remedies, Chapter 23 (West 2021).

This chapter addresses the requirement that state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief first pursue available state court remedies and discusses:

● How to provide state courts with a full and fair opportunity to review federal claims,

● When the exhaustion requirement may be excused, and

● The options available to federal courts faced with a mixed or wholly unexhausted petition.

224 INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS

it looms as an uncompromising obstacle to state

prisoners seeking federal habeas relief.

A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW

The Supreme Court’s first foray into what would later

be termed the “exhaustion of state remedies” came in its

1886 decision Ex parte Royall.1 The petitioner, who was

indicted and awaiting trial in Virginia, immediately sought

a federal writ of habeas corpus instead of presenting his

federal defense in the existing state court proceeding. A

federal statute in effect at the time provided that a federal

judge presented with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

“shall forth with award a writ of habeas corpus . . . .”2

The question before the Supreme Court was whether this

statutory provision mandated federal courts to entertain

habeas petitions, even where state trial proceedings were

ongoing. Notwithstanding the seemingly mandatory

language of the statute, the Supreme Court answered this

question in the negative:

The question as to the constitutionality of the

law under which he is indicted must necessarily

arise at his trial under the indictment, and it is

one upon which, as we have seen, it is

competent for the state court to pass. Under

such circumstances, does the statute

imperatively require the circuit court, by writ of

habeas corpus, to wrest the petitioner from the

custody of the state officers in advance of his

trial in the state court? We are of opinion that

while the circuit court has the power to do so,

and may discharge the accused in advance of

1 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886). 2 Id. at 246, 6 S.Ct. 734.

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES 225

his trial if he is restrained of his liberty in

violation of the national constitution, it is not

bound in every case to exercise such a power

immediately upon application being made for

the writ.[3]

The Supreme Court concluded that a federal court sitting

in habeas had discretion to deny relief to state prisoners

in advance of trial, absent “any special circumstances

requiring immediate action.”4

The next major pronouncement by the Supreme Court

on exhaustion came in its 1944 decision Ex parte Hawk.5

The case involved a Nebraska prisoner who brought his

claim to the state supreme court solely in an original

petition for writ of habeas corpus. In denying the writ,

the state supreme court expressed its preference that

prisoners first seek relief in the lower state courts before

proceeding to the state’s highest court. The prisoner then

filed an original petition in the Supreme Court.

Consistent with Royall, the Supreme Court dismissed the

habeas petition without prejudice to the prisoner’s

resorting to available state remedies.

Congress revised the Judicial Code in 1948 and added

language incorporating the exhaustion principle. One

section was amended to provide that “[a]n application

for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall

not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has

exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the

State, or that there is either an absence of available State

corrective process or the existence of circumstances

3 Id. at 250-51, 6 S.Ct. 734. 4 Id. at 252-53, 6 S.Ct. 734. 5 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572 (1944).


rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of

the prisoner.”6 Another section was added stating, “An

applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the

remedies available in the courts of the State . . . if he has

the right under the law of the State to raise, by any

available procedure, the question presented.”7

Confusion ensued. Some courts interpreted the new

language as merely a codification of existing law as

previously declared by the Supreme Court. But other

courts read this new language as imposing a virtual bar

against federal court review on habeas corpus. These

courts reasoned that because state collateral remedies

could often be pursued again and again, a state court

“procedure” would always remain “available” to state

prisoners, even if it was in effect futile.

The Supreme Court settled the dispute in its 1953

decision Brown v. Allen. 8 The petitioners in that case

presented their claims on direct review to North

Carolina’s highest state court and, thereafter,

unsuccessfully sought certiorari review by the Supreme

Court. None of the petitioners pursued collateral relief in

the North Carolina state courts. The petitioners later

filed federal habeas corpus petitions alleging claims based

on the same legal grounds and evidence presented to

North Carolina’s highest court on direct review. The case

presented the question of whether the availability of state

collateral remedies in North Carolina precluded the

petitioners from seeking federal habeas corpus review, as

some lower courts had concluded. The Supreme Court

ruled that it did not, stating that “to ask the state for

6 Former 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 7 Former 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 8 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953).

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES 227

collateral relief, based on the same evidence and issues

already decided by direct review” was not necessary to

satisfy the exhaustion requirement.9

At the time Brown was decided, prisoners were required

to seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court on direct

review in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. But

the Supreme Court dispensed with this requirement in its

1963 decision in Fay v. Noia. 10 Under this new approach,

prisoners were no longer required to seek certiorari

review before seeking federal habeas corpus relief,

although the right to do so was preserved.

Congress amended § 2254 in 1988, and then again in

1996. The changes were relatively minor. One new

provision granted federal courts with the authority to

deny (but not grant) an application for a writ of habeas

corpus “notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to

exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the

State.”11 Another provision was added to provide that

states could not waive or be estopped from relying on

exhaustion as a defense absent an express waiver by the

state through counsel.12

9 Id. at 447, 73 S.Ct. 397. 10 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), overruled in part on other grounds by Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 12 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).

Further Research: Postconviction Remedies, § 23:2.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

FILING DEADLINES

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation termed the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA), that imposed a one-year statute of limitations

on state and federal prisoners seeking federal

postconviction review. This was a dramatic departure

from then-existing law, which did little to ensure

diligence on the part of prisoners seeking federal court

intervention.

A comprehensive discussion of untimeliness principles can be found at Federal Habeas Manual, Chapter 9A (West 2021), and Postconviction Remedies, Chapter 23 (West 2021).

This chapter discusses the one-year time limit placed on state and federal prisoners seeking federal postconviction review, including:

● Determining when the limitations period commences based on four statutory triggers,

● Determining when, and for how long, the limitations period is either statutorily or equitably tolled, and

● Determining when untimely claims relate back to previously-filed timely claims, thereby reviving the otherwise time-barred claims.


A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW

Historically, there have been no time restrictions on

state or federal prisoners seeking federal postconviction

review. The passage of time by itself would not

extinguish federal postconviction remedies for

individuals subject to unlawful incarceration.1

Time limitations were first imposed in a 1977

amendment to the Rules Governing § 2254 and § 2255

Proceedings. The amendment incorporated the concept

of laches into the habeas rules and authorized district

courts to dismiss postconviction review applications if it

appeared that the prisoner’s delay prejudiced the

government’s ability to respond.2 The amendment had

little effect in practice, however, and even decades-long

delays did not bar relief.3 Prisoners, for the most part,

could seek federal review at their leisure.4

1 Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 215, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 123, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126 (1956); Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 164-65, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957)). 2 Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 3 Day, 547 U.S. at 215, 126 S.Ct. 1675 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 949 (8th Cir. 1970) (40 years); Hamilton v. Watkins, 436 F.2d 1323, 1325 (5th Cir. 1970) (36 or more years); Hannon v. Maschner, 845 F.2d 1553, 1553-55 (10th Cir. 1988) (24 or more years)). 4 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); see also U.S. v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 475, 67 S.Ct. 1330, 91 L.Ed. 1610 (1947).

FILING DEADLINES 255

In 1996, as part of legislation enacted under AEDPA,

Congress imposed strict new deadlines for state and

federal prisoners seeking federal postconviction review.

By its terms, prisoners have one year from one of four

different statutory triggers to file their applications in

federal court, plus any time authorized for statutory and

equitable tolling. This dramatic change in law is the

subject of this chapter.

B. THE STATUTES

Section 2244 of Title 28, applicable to state prisoners,

states:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an

application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of—

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by

the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of

the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an

application created by State action in violation of

the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing

by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right

asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme

Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the

Further Research: Postconviction Remedies, § 25:1.


Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the

claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review

with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

Section 2255 of Title 28, applicable to federal

prisoners, states:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion

under this section. The limitation period shall run

from the latest of—

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a

motion created by governmental action in violation

of the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the movant was prevented from making

a motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has

been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim

or claims presented could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence.


C. COMMENCEMENT

The first step in judging the timeliness of a federal

postconviction review application is identifying the

commencement date of the limitations period. For both

state and federal prisoners, the limitations period

commences from the latter of four possible

statutorily-prescribed events. Each is considered in

turn.

1. Finality on direct appeal

The first trigger for commencement of the AEDPA

limitations period is the date the prisoner’s conviction

became final on direct review. This is the most

commonly applied of the four statutory triggers. For

state prisoners, the date of finality is “the date which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review

or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”5

For federal prisoners, it is “the date on which the

judgment of conviction becomes final.”6 The most

common scenarios for state and federal prisoners, and

the associated dates of finality, are set out below in

Table 1 for state prisoners (see infra page 258) and Table 2

for federal prisoners (see infra page 259).

5 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 6 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).


Table 1 (State prisoners)

Prisoner’s Actions Date of Finality

The state prisoner does not

appeal the state trial court

judgment.

The judgment becomes final

on the date the time to

appeal expires under state

law.

The state prisoner timely

appeals to the state

intermediate court of appeal,

but does not seek

discretionary review in the

state’s highest court.

The judgment of conviction

becomes final on the date

the time for seeking

discretionary review expires

under state law.




timely seeks discretionary

review in the state’s highest

court, but does not seek

certiorari review in the

United States Supreme

Court.



the time for seeking


United States Supreme Court

expires—90 days after the

state's highest court denies

review or relief. (See Note,

infra, page 260.)




timely seeks discretionary

review in the state’s highest

court, and timely seeks


United States Supreme

Court.



the United States Supreme

Court either denies the

petition for writ of certiorari

or issues a merits decision.


E. EQUITABLE TOLLING

1. Background

AEDPA does not expressly allow for tolling except as

previously discussed. Thus, any general right to equitable

tolling would have to be judge-made. Although it may

seem odd to some that courts may create equitable

tolling exceptions to a statute of limitations, that is the

default rule, at least where the statute of limitations says

nothing about equitable tolling. But when Congress has

codified that default rule and specified the instances

Special Tolling Rules

Prisoners do not always proceed through state

courts in an orderly fashion. Sometimes, instead

of moving directly to the next highest state court,

prisoners file successive petitions in the same or

lower courts, alleging the same claims, new

claims, or both. On occasion, these multiple,

non-linear filings result in different rounds of

habeas review and overlapping postconviction

review proceedings. Special tolling rules have

been developed to accommodate these types of

circumstances. See Means, Postconviction

Remedies, §§ 25:26, 25:27, 25:33 (West 2021

ed.) (discussing tolling rules).


3. Application of the Equitable Tolling Doctrine

in Other Contexts

We previously considered Supreme Court precedents

involving conduct by a prisoner’s attorney that may

constitute an extraordinary circumstance. But what

qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance is not limited

to actions by counsel. Indeed, it is applicable in a myriad

of circumstances. And although it is not practical to

identify all possible grounds where the doctrine may

apply, considering its application in a variety of

contexts—as is done below—helps to identify commonly

shared parameters of the doctrine.

Mental impediments.

It is not uncommon for prisoners to seek equitable

tolling on the basis of a mental impediment. Although

the Supreme Court has not directly spoken to this basis

for equitable relief, the legal theory has received

considerable attention by lower courts. One of the most

prominent decisions in this area comes from the Ninth

Circuit. In Bills v. Clark,127 petitioner argued that he was

entitled to equitable tolling based on his “inability to read

and write, his neurological deficits, borderline to mildly

retarded level of intelligence, [and] concurrent psychosis

and lack of assistance available to him.”128 The Ninth

Circuit stated that the eligibility for equitable tolling due

127 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Wallace v. Mahanoy SCI, 2 F.4th 133, 148-50 (3d Cir. 2021). 128 Bills, 628 F.3d at 1094.


to mental impairment requires the petitioner to meet a

two-part test:

(1) First, a petitioner must show his mental

impairment was an “extraordinary

circumstance” beyond his control by

demonstrating the impairment was so severe

that either

(a) petitioner was unable rationally or

factually to personally understand the need to

timely file, or

(b) petitioner’s mental state rendered him

unable personally to prepare a habeas

petition and effectuate its filing.

(2) Second, the petitioner must show diligence

in pursuing the claims to the extent he could

understand them, but that the mental

impairment made it impossible to meet the

filing deadline under the totality of the

circumstances, including reasonably available

access to assistance.129

The court reiterated that the “extraordinary

circumstance” of mental impairment “can cause an

untimely habeas petition at different stages in the process

of filing by preventing petitioner from understanding the

need to file, effectuating a filing on his own, or finding

and utilizing assistance to file.”130 The “totality of the

circumstances” inquiry in the second prong, the court

explained, “considers whether the petitioner’s

impairment was a but-for cause of any delay.” 131 A

petitioner’s mental impairment, therefore, “might justify

equitable tolling if it interferes with the ability to

129 Id. at 1099-1100 (italics in original, bolding added). 130 Id. at 1100. 131 Id.


understand the need for assistance, the ability to secure

it, or the ability to cooperate with or monitor assistance

the petitioner does secure.”132 Thus, a petitioner “always

remains accountable for diligence in pursuing his or her

rights.”133

In practice, the court explained, to evaluate whether a

petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, the district court

must:

(1) find the petitioner has made a non-frivolous

showing that he had a severe mental

impairment during the filing period that would

entitle him to an evidentiary hearing; 134

132 Id. 133 Id.; see also Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 2010) (stating that “mental illness” can constitute an extraordinary circumstance depending on “how severe an obstacle [the illness] is for the prisoner endeavoring to comply with AEDPA’s limitations period,” and that to be eligible under this severity standard, the petitioner “must demonstrate that her particular disability constituted an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ severely impairing her ability to comply with the filing deadline, despite her diligent efforts to do so,” and must “offer a particularized description of how her condition adversely affected her capacity to function generally or in relationship to the pursuit of her rights”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 134 It is important to recognize that the petitioner must present evidence of his mental disability for the relevant time period for purposes of tolling. For instance, in Mayberry v. Dittmann, 904 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2018), the petitioner pointed to a number of circumstances he claimed justified his entitlement to equitable tolling, namely: (1) he was in a serious car accident in the late 1980s that left him in a coma for some period of time; (2) he dropped out of school, where he had been enrolled in special education classes, when he was only fifteen; (3) a psychological evaluation conducted in 1999 found him incompetent to stand trial, was functioning “in the mild range of mental retardation,” and had an IQ of 64, which placed him in the intellectually impaired or mentally retarded range; and (4) a Columbia Correctional Institution “inmate classification report” from 2014


(2) determine, after considering the record,

whether the petitioner satisfied his burden that

he was in fact mentally impaired; (3) determine

whether the petitioner’s mental impairment

made it impossible to timely file on his own;

and (4) consider whether the circumstances

demonstrate the petitioner was otherwise

diligent in attempting to comply with the filing

requirements.135

With respect to necessary diligence, the court stated,

“petitioner must diligently seek assistance and exploit

whatever assistance is reasonably available. The court

should examine whether the petitioner’s mental

impairment prevented him from locating assistance or

communicating with or sufficiently supervising any

assistance actually found.”136

included a notation in the box labeled “Mental Health Class”: “MH-2a-Serious Mental Illness (Diagnostic).” Petitioner argued that, taken together, these circumstances rose to the necessary level of “extraordinary.” But the court held that, although petitioner’s mental limitations made filing a petition for habeas corpus difficult, petitioner failed to show how these difficulties affected him during the period between when his state conviction became final and when he filed his federal habeas petition. Therefore, he failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that equitable tolling was warranted. Id. at 530-32. 135 Bills, 628 F.3d at 1100-01; see also Ata v. Scutt, 662 F.3d 736, 742 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[A] causal link between the mental condition and untimely filing is required.”); Riva v. Ficco, 615 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2010) (“[A] habeas petitioner satisfies the causation requirement if he can show that, during the relevant time frame, he suffered from a mental illness or impairment that so severely impaired his ability either effectively to pursue legal relief to his own behalf [sic] or, if represented, effectively to assist and communicate with counsel.”). 136 Bills, 628 F.3d at 1101; see also Gordon v. Arkansas, 823 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2016) (petitioner who filed his federal petition nearly eight months after AEDPA limitations period expired


The court added that “[t]he availability of assistance is

an important element to a court’s diligence analysis”:

[I]f prison officials or even other prisoners

were readily available to assist [the petitioner]

in filing his habeas petition but [the petitioner]

refused to accept their assistance, a court could

conclude [the petitioner] may not have been

diligent in pursuing his claims such that he is

entitled to equitable tolling. That is not to say a

prisoner fails the diligence requirement for

refusing jailhouse assistance. It is only part of

the overall assessment of the totality of

circumstances that goes into the equitable

determination. Thus, in many circumstances,

the existence of such help would be highly

relevant to the question of whether a

petitioner’s mental condition made it

impossible to file a timely petition. But the

availability of jailhouse assistance could also cut

the other way. If legal help is available only

because a prisoner has to resort to bribery or

succumb to extortion, and a prisoner does not

do so, a court would not find a lack of

diligence. Here it is unclear what assistance [the

petitioner] had and how that assistance, if any,

failed to show that he exercised reasonable diligence, despite argument that he was in the prison’s mental health unit for four months following his guilty plea without access to legal materials; prison records showed that he was on a restrictive treatment-precaution status in the mental health unit for only three months of the limitations period, and he failed to explain why he was unable to diligently pursue his federal rights during the remaining ninth-month period, as he was able to access sufficient legal materials during that time); Stancle v. Clay, 692 F.3d 948, 959 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence in pursuing claim and that his mental disorder made it impossible to meet the federal deadline where petitioner had continual assistance of his jail house lawyer in filing both his federal and state habeas corpus petitions).


bore on his ability to meet the filing

deadline.137

The court pointed out that the record did not address

whether petitioner was diligent in seeking assistance with

his claim, nor did it address whether there was any

assistance available to him on reasonable terms. The

court also observed that it was unclear what assistance

petitioner had and how that assistance, if any, bore on his

ability to meet the filing deadline. The court therefore

remanded to the district court for further

consideration.138

Inadequate Law Library.

The absence of pertinent AEDPA or other legal

materials in a prison law library may constitute an

extraordinary circumstance warranting tolling. 139 But

because there is not “an abstract, freestanding right to a

law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish

relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his

prison’s law library or legal assistance program is subpar

in some theoretical sense.”140

137 Bills, 628 F.3d at 1101. 138 Id. 139 Sometimes, the absence of legal materials in a prison law library is treated as an impediment to filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) (“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of . . . the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action.”). 140 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).


Although circuit courts disagree on the precise

showing required, it is generally accepted that a prisoner,

at a minimum, must demonstrate that he was unable to

obtain a copy of AEDPA or other pertinent resources

from prison authorities. For example, an allegation that

the prison library “consisted of only three outdated legal

books, which contained no information about the

AEDPA” was held to entitle a petitioner to an

evidentiary hearing on his equitable tolling claim.141 On

the other hand, it was held that a petitioner must allege

more than the prison “lacked all relevant statutes and

case law or that the procedure to request specific

materials was inadequate.”142

And in other equitable tolling contexts, it is not

enough to demonstrate an extraordinary circumstance;

the petitioner must also demonstrate that he acted with

the requisite diligence. Courts differ widely on what the

petitioner must allege in order to obtain an evidentiary

hearing. For instance, one circuit court held that in order

to show diligence, a petitioner claiming deficiencies in the

prison library must provide details of the specific actions

taken toward filing the petition, must show when he

found out about the library’s alleged deficiency, must

state any independent efforts made to determine when

141 Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2006). But see Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (rejecting petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling because the prison library “was missing a handful of reporter volumes,” and stating that “circumstances are hardly extraordinary given the vicissitudes of prison life, and there is no indication in the record that they made it ‘impossible’ for him to file on time”). 142 Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998).


the relevant limitations period began to run, and must

demonstrate how the prison thwarted those efforts.143

But another circuit court held that petitioners satisfied

their pleading burden entitling them to an evidentiary

hearing in alleging that (1) the prison library had only

outdated legal materials, none of which contained the

AEDPA; (2) they had pursued their claims within a

reasonable period of time before the external

impediment arose (the transfer to a prison that lacked

legal resources), and (3) the actions they took in pursuing

their federal habeas claims occurred before the

limitations period expired.144 The circuit court declined

to adopt the district court’s test requiring the petitioners

to allege when they asked for assistance and none was

provided, and the dates they attempted to obtain

information from the prison that lacked the AEDPA

materials: “[I]f the petitioners can allege facts showing

that extraordinary circumstances—and not a lack of

diligence—caused the failure to file, there is no need to

require specific dates before holding an evidentiary

hearing.”145

Finally, the petitioner must show that the absence of

AEDPA or other legal materials in the prison library was

the cause of the failure to file a timely petition. For

example, the absence of case law in the prison library

interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) was held not to have

impeded the petitioner’s ability to timely file a federal

petition where the petitioner admitted he was unaware of

the AEDPA statute of limitations during the limitations

143 Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006), opinion modified on reh’g, 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 144 Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2006). 145 Id. at 973.


period.146 Likewise, it was fatal for a petitioner seeking

equitable relief based on the lack of an adequate library

to omit showing that these inadequacies actually hindered

his efforts to pursue federal habeas relief.147

Misleading Court Statements.

Another circumstance where equitable tolling may be

appropriate is where a prisoner is misled by a state or

federal court and the result is the prisoner’s untimely

filing. 148 This would include where, prior to the

expiration of the deadline for filing the federal petition,

the prisoner seeks and obtains from the district court an

extension of time to file the petition, and relies on the

district court’s order in good faith and to his

detriment. 149 Another example would be where the

prisoner is misled into filing a state postconviction

review petition in the wrong court, ultimately leading to

the federal petition being filed too late.150

146 Bryant v. Arizona Atty. Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007). 147 Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424, 427 (8th Cir. 2007). 148 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 234, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 159 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2004) (remanding to address court of appeals’ concern that prisoner may have been affirmatively misled by the magistrate judge); Id. at 235 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“if the petitioner is affirmatively misled, either by the court or by the State, equitable tolling might well be appropriate”); Id. at 235 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (agreeing with the majority to remand to the Ninth Circuit to determine the propriety of equitable tolling based on concern that prisoner may have been affirmatively misled by the magistrate judge). 149 See, e.g., Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1233 (9th Cir. 2013); Prieto v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511, 515 (5th Cir. 2006). 150 Spottsville v. Terry, 476 F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2007).


● There is a one-year limitations period on the filing of § 2254 petitions and § 2255 motions to vacate.

● The statute of limitations is a threshold issue.

● The limitations period is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, not on the application as a whole.

● The one-year limitations period begins to run from the latest of four dates identified in the pertinent statutes.

● For state prisoners, the limitations period is statutorily tolled for the period during which a properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review, with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim, was pending.

● For both state and federal prisoners, the limitations period is equitably tolled if, notwithstanding the exercise of diligence, an extraordinary circumstance beyond the petitioner’s control prevented the timely filing of a federal petition.

● The one-year limitations clock stops running when the petitioner has before a federal court a § 2254 petition or § 2255 motion seeking adjudication on the merits of the claims. This determination may be affected by the prison mailbox rule.

● Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a means of avoiding the one-year statute of limitations.

● An otherwise untimely claim relates back to a timely-filed claim if based on a common core of operative facts.

Key Points to Remember


1. On January 1, 2010, petitioner was convicted of

second-degree murder and sentenced to a prison term of

15 years to life. On January 20, 2010, he timely appealed.

On March 1, 2012, the state intermediate court of appeal

affirmed the judgment in all respects. Under state law,

petitioner had 60 days to file a petition for discretionary

review with the state supeme court. Petitioner did not

seek further state review. On April 15, 2013, petitioner

filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Was the

federal petition timely filed?

2. Petitioner’s conviction became final on direct review

on April 1, 2015. On July 1, 2015, he timely filed a

petition for postconviction relief in the state trial court.

On August 1, 2015, the trial court denied relief on the

merits and petitioner timely appealed. On September 1,

2015, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s

judgment. On July 15, 2016, petitioner filed a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Was the federal

petition timely filed?

3. On April 1, 2015, petitioner’s conviction became

final on direct review. On March 1, 2016, petitioner filed

a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state’s

highest court. The petition was denied on the merits July

1, 2016. On July 15, 2016, petitioner timely filed a

petition for writ of certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court. On October 1, 2016, the Supreme Court

denied certiorari review. That same day, petitioner filed a

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in a federal

district court. Is the federal habeas petition timely?

Problems


4. At the time petitioner filed his federal petition,

circuit law provided that he was entitled to tolling for 90

days after the Missouri Court of Appeals denied relief.

Later, the Eighth Circuit in an en banc decision overruled

this precedent and held that petitioners were only entitled

to this 90 days of tolling if they moved to transfer their

case from the Missouri Court of Appeals to the Missouri

Supreme Court, which petitioner had not done. Under

the prior law, the federal petition was timely; under new

circuit precedent, it was not. Is petitioner entitled to

equitable tolling?

5. Defendant filed a timely § 2255 motion to vacate

which included claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. After the AEDPA statute of limitations had run,

defendant sought to bring an additional claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. In that claim, defendant

alleged that counsel erred in not asking a government

witness about prior statements he had made to the FBI

that were inconsistent with his trial testimony. The

district court ruled that the claim was untimely because

the only reference made in the original § 2255 motion

regarding cross-examination concerned the elicitation of

prejudicial testimony regarding defendant’s illegal drug

activities during counsel’s cross-examination of the

government witness. Was the district court correct?

1. Yes. Where a state prisoner does not seek review in

the state’s highest court, the judgment becomes “final”

for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A) on the date that the time

for seeking such review expires. Here, petitioner had 60

days from the intermediate court of appeal’s decision on

March 1, 2012, to seek discretionary review. Because he

did not do so, the judgment became final sixty days

thereafter on April 30, 2012. The AEDPA one-year

limitations period commenced running on May 1, 2012.

Petitioner filed his federal petition on April 15, 2013,

within the one-year period.

2. No. Petitioner had one year from the date of finality

(April 1, 2015) to file his federal habeas petition (March

30, 2016), plus any tolling. Petitioner is entitled to

statutory tolling for the time during which a properly

filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment

or claim was pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Here,

petitioner is not entitled to tolling from April 2, 2015

(one day after finality) to June 30, 2015 (one day before

petition for postconviction relief was filed in the state

trial court) because nothing was “pending” during this

period. But petitioner is afforded tolling from July 1,

2015, to September 1, 2015, the period petitioner’s

timely-filed postconviction review petition and appeal

were “pending.” Petitioner is not afforded tolling,

however, for the period after the state appellate court

affirmed the trial court (September 2, 2015), until the

date petitioner filed his federal habeas petition (July 15,

2016). Because petitioner did not file his federal habeas

Solutions to Problems

Section V

POST

ADJUDICATION

Another Bite at the Apple

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

POST-RULING PRACTICE

AP

A district court’s ruling does not necessarily end the

matter. Short of an appeal to the circuit court of appeals

for that judicial district, numerous remedies exist for

challenging a district court’s ruling. The most common

challenges comprise the subject of this chapter.

A. BEYOND THE HABEAS STATUTES

For state prisoners, the area of federal postconviction

review is governed by the federal habeas statutes, e.g., 28

U.S.C. § 2244, 2254. The procedures set out in these

habeas corpus statutes take precedence over the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure during the pendency of habeas

A comprehensive discussion of post-ruling practice can be found at Federal Habeas Manual, Chapter Twelve (West 2021).

This chapter discusses the filing of motions or other pleadings after the district court has issued a decision, including

● Motions for reconsideration,

● Rule 52(b) and 59 motions, and

● Rule 60(b) motions.


corpus proceedings.1 The habeas corpus statutes do not

prescribe post-ruling procedures, however. The statutes

are silent about the proper method for obtaining the

correction of asserted errors after a district court ruling,

whether on appeal or in the district court itself. Thus, the

post-ruling procedures prescribed in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure may apply to habeas corpus cases.

B. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

Litigants may seek reconsideration of final and non-

final district court orders. The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure do not specifically mention motions for

reconsideration.

With regard to non-final orders entered prior to

judgment, some courts have determined that motions for

reconsideration are “nothing more” than Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b) motions.2 But other courts have

held that inasmuch as a petitioner seeks reconsideration

of a non-final order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b)3 governs, not Rule 60(b).4 This probably represents

1 Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267-68, 98 S.Ct. 556, 562, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). 2 Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 525 (8th Cir. 2003). 3 Rule 54(b), in pertinent part, states that “any order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment[.]” 4 Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 309 F.R.D. 77, 80 (D.D.C. 2015) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide three avenues for seeking reconsideration of judicial decisions. . . . Rule 54 governs reconsideration of interlocutory orders, [whereas] Rules 59(e) and 60(b) dictate when a party may obtain

POST-RULING PRACTICE 513

the better view. Under Rule 54(b), district courts are

“empowered to revisit and vacate . . . any non-final order

‘at any time before the entry of a judgment.’”5 This is in

sharp contrast with a motion to vacate “a final judgment,

order, or proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Relief from a

final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) “is appropriate only

in cases presenting ‘extraordinary’ circumstances.”6 Thus,

the standard governing a motion to vacate under Rule

54(b) is less strict than that under Rule 60(b).7 This less

onerous burden for obtaining reconsideration of non-

final orders is more consistent with the plenary power of

federal courts to review its interlocutory orders to afford

such relief from them as justice requires.8

That is not to say that decisions by courts that

reconsider non-final orders under their inherent authority

are standardless. Rather, in exercising their inherent

authority in determining whether reconsideration is

appropriate, courts consider a number of non-exhaustive

factors, including (1) whether the district court was

presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) whether

the district court committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) whether there was

reconsideration of a final judgment.”); Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 271 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Rule 54(b) governs reconsideration of orders that do not constitute final judgments in a case.”). 5 Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir. 2010). 6 First Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Gov't of Antigua & Barbuda-Permanent Mission, 877 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1989). 7 Persistence Software, Inc. v. The Object People, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 626, 627 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 8 Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 875 (1st Cir. 1990) (finding that the district court erred in vacating an interlocutory order under Rule 60(b)(6), did not need to comply with the requirements of Rule 60(b)(6), and had the discretionary power to alter the interlocutory order).


an intervening change in controlling law. Local rules may

require the movant to identify the circumstances

surrounding the reconsideration motion, including

(1) when and to what judge or magistrate judge the prior

motion was made; (2) what ruling, decision, or order was

made thereon; (3) what new or different facts or

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion; and (4) why the facts or

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior

motion.9

The fact that a litigant demonstrates grounds for

reconsideration does not mean that he is necessarily

entitled to relief. It only means that the federal court

should reconsider its decision. The federal court may,

upon reconsideration, reach the same conclusion as it

had previously.

Where a ruling has resulted in a final judgment, the

motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to

alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), or

as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). Both of these provisions are discussed

below. If the motion does not state under which of these

two rules the motion is brought, the motion may be

treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if filed within 28 days of

entry of judgment, and as a Rule 60(b) motion if filed

more than 28 days after entry of the order or judgment.10

9 See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). 10 American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001).


C. RULE 52(b) AND 59 MOTIONS

1. Motion to amend findings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) allows a movant

who believes the court’s findings or conclusions are

erroneous to file a motion to alter or amend the findings.

A motion to amend findings must be filed no later

than 28 days after entry of judgment.11 A final judgment

requiring a separate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)

is “entered” when the judgment is both entered in the

civil docket under Rule 79(a), and is set forth on a

separate document or 150 days have run from entry of

the judgment in the civil docket pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 79(a), whichever occurs first. 12 The “separate

document” requirement does not apply to orders denying

Rule 52(b) motions to amend or make additional

findings.13

The Supreme Court has explicitly held that Rule 52(b)

applies in habeas corpus proceedings,14 and the rule is

routinely applied in § 2255 actions.

2. Motion for new trial

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). Rule 59(a) does not

enumerate grounds on which the court may order a new

trial. It only states that a new trial may be ordered after a

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2). 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(2). 14 Browder, 434 U.S. at 270-71, 98 S.Ct. 556.


1. The district court dismissed petitioner’s habeas

petition as barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations and the court of appeals declined to issue a

certificate of appealability. Later, after a change in law,

petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the

district court’s dismissal. According to petitioner, under

the change in law, his federal habeas petition was not

untimely. The district court dismissed the Rule 60(b)

motion as a second or successive petition. Was the

district court correct?

2. Petitioner’s federal habeas counsel filed a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion asserting that petitioner’s trial attorney

provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied

the petition because federal habeas counsel failed to

provide evidentiary support for the trial-counsel-

ineffectiveness claim. The court of appeals declined to

issue a certificate of appealability. Later, petitioner sought

relief under Rule 60(b), arguing that federal habeas

counsel was ineffective for failing to provide needed

evidentiary support. The district court denied the

petition, concluding that it was an unauthorized second

or successive application. Was the district court correct?

Problems

INDEX References are to Pages

Actual innocence claims, 131 Adequate state grounds,

procedural default, 337 AEDPA

"contrary to", 432 deference, factual issues,

457 enactment, 41 successive petitions, 163

AEDPA deference clearly established law,

419 factual development, 467 factual findings, 465 merits adjudication, 404 unreasonable application,

435 Audita querela, writ of, 12, 94 Burger Court, 105 Cause, to excuse procedural

default, 343 Certificate of appealability,

11, 12, 26, 350 Civil rights actions, 59 Clearly established, 24, 46,

386, 419 Cognizability

actual innocence, 131 Fourth Amendment claims,

127 generally, 126 Ineffective assistance of

counsel claims, 133 pre-plea violations, 135 prior convictionrth

Amendment claims, 127 Future of habeas corpus, 43 Habeas Corpus Act of 1867,

30

Harmless error, 41, 475, 509 History of federal collateral

review, 29 Independent state grounds,

procedural default, 337 Ineffective assistance of

counsel, 133, 349 Innocence, 92, 131, 200, 314,

352 Judiciary Act of 1789, 30 Jurisdiction of federal courts,

85 Magistrate judges, 22 Merits, adjudication of, 404 Mixed petitions, 246 Mootness, 149 Motion for new trial, 514 Motion to amend findings,

513 Motion to amend or alter

judgment, 517 Motion to vacate, set aside or

correct a sentence, 11, 90 Motions for reconsideration,

510 New rules

defined, 376 exceptions, 380 generally, 363 procedure, 387 relationship to AEDPA, 386

New rules of law, 40, 190 Oklahoma City bombing, 41 Post-ruling practice, 509 Prejudice

in ineffective assistance of counsel cases, 133

to excuse procedural default, 351

INDEX ii

warranting habeas relief, 475, 509

Procedural default, 39 Procedureal default

cause and prejudice, 343 exorbitant applications,

343 independence and

adequacy, 337 miscarriage of justice, 352 plain statement rule, 331 procedure, 356

Relief, 25 Retroactivity, 363 Second or successive

petitions, 27

defined, 171 generally, 163 intervening judgments,

178 new claims, 190 previously adjudicated

claim, 186 procedure, 212 timing, 182

State post-conviction review, 7

State prisoners, habeas statutes, 86

Treaty claims, 117 Warren Court, 34 Writ of certiorari, 5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES References are to Pages

CASES

Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2012) ............................................... 533 Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L. Ed. 1898 (1948) .............. 445 Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) ............. 338 Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 309 F.R.D. 77 (D.D.C. 2015) ................... 512 Allen v McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) ................. 61 Allen v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 611 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 2010) .................... 495 Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3, 128 S.Ct. 2, 169 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007) .................... 271 Alvarez v. Boyd, 225 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................................. 494 Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 108 S.Ct. 1771, 100 L.Ed.2d 249 (1988) ......... 345 Amado v. Gonzalez, 734 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................. 404, 419 American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d

892 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 514 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518

(1985) ........................................................................................................ 443 Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003) ............................. 512 Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 131 S.Ct.

1436, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011).................................................................... 152 Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) .............. 126 Arnold v. Evatt, 113 F.3d 1352 (4th Cir. 1997) ............................................... 495 Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2006) .............................................. 304 Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2014) ........................................... 533 Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L. Ed. 2d 213 (2000) .... 271, 532 Asher v. Harrington, 461 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1972) .......................................... 182 Ata v. Scutt, 662 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2011)....................................................... 300 Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) ...... 194,

366, 381 Atkins v. Zenk, 667 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2012) ................................................... 418 Bailey v. U.S, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) ................ 195 Bain v. MJJ Productions, Inc., 751 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................... 526 Baldayaque v. U.S., 338 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003)............................................. 294 Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75

L.Ed. 1244 (1931) ...................................................................................... 528 Banister v. Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 207 L. Ed. 2d 58 (2020) ........ 520 Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004) ....... 345 Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................... 419 Barr v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 146, 84 S.Ct. 1734, 1736, 12 L.Ed.2d 766 (1964) .. 341 Barton v. Warden, S. Ohio Corr., 786 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2015) ...................... .419 Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................... 525

iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) .......... 203 Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 124 S.Ct. 2504, 159 L.Ed.2d 494 (2004) .......... 374 Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 130 S.Ct. 612, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009) ............. 338 Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................ 182 Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................ 293, 297 Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) .......... 137 Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass’n v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.

2006) ......................................................................................................... 523 Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2010) ........................................ 299 Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008) .................................................... 419 Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................... 306 Brannigan v. U.S., 249 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2001) ............................................. 186 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)

............................................................................................................. passim Brooks v. Bagley, 513 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008) ............................................... 418 Brooks v. Yates, 818 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) ............................ 531 Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 98 S.Ct. 556, 562, 54 L.Ed.2d

521 (1978). ................................................................................................ 512 Bryant v. Arizona Atty. Gen., 499 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................... 305 Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001) .............................................. 527 Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347(1990)....... 375 Byrd v. Phoenix Police Department, 885 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2018) .................... 73 Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2000)............................. 524 Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990) .......... 192 Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) . 331 Capler v. City of Greenville, 422 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1970) ............................... 107 Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968) ....... 149 Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) .. 47, 386,

429 Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002) ......... 275 Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) ............................................ 497 Carlisle v. U.S., 517 U.S. 416, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) ............. 95 Carpenter v. Douma, 840 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2016) ......................................... 294 Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2013) ............................................... 205 Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) ....................... 524 Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989)...... 231 Ceja v. Stewart, 97 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 494 Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) ...................... 303 Chaidez v. U.S., 568 U.S. 342, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) ........... 377 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)

............................................................................................................. passim Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) . 41, 478 Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................... 295 Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957) ......... 254 Ching v. U.S., 298 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.2000) ....................................................... 181 Clay v. U.S., 537 U.S. 522, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003) .......... 259, 375 CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Const. Co., 57 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 1995) .... 525 Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1987)

.................................................................................................................. 526 Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) .............................................. 513

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS v

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) ............................................................................................................. passim

Collins v. Secretary of Penn. Dept. of Corr., 742 F.3d 528 (3d Cir. 2014) ........ 418 Coppage v. McKune, 534 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2008) ..................................... 295 Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cty., 777 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2015) ............................ 73 Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 533 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)

.......................................................................................................... 367, 382 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) ..... 47,

445, 469 Custis v. U.S., 511 U.S. 485, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) .............. 138 Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008)

.................................................................................................................. 364 Daniels v. U.S., 532 U.S. 374, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001) ........... 138 Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950) .................... 243 Davilia v. Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 2058, 198 L.Ed.2d 603 (2017) .......... 350 Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) ............ 486 Davis v. Kramer, 167 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................ 434 Davis v. U.S., 411 U.S. 233, 93 S.Ct. 1577, 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973) .................. 328 Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006) ... 254,

317, 357 Deck v. Jenkins, 814 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................. 487 Dennis v. Sec’y, Penn. Dept. of Corr., 834 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2016) .................. 448 Denno v. School Bd. of Volusia County, Fla., 218 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2000) . 422 Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453 (5th Cir. 1992)................................... 495, 499 Desist v. U.S., 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) ................. 366 Dodd v. U.S., 545 U.S. 353, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005)...... 195, 266,

378 Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................. 292 Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................. 292 Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................... 109 Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). ............ 4 Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976) ................... 238 Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 1996)............................................ 434 Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) ................................................ 496 Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 103 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989) ....... 341 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) ....... 41,

107, 273 Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2002) ............................................... 525 Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) ...... 65 Edwards v. Vannoy, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 209 L.Ed.2d 651 (2021) .... 383 Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Titan Intern., Inc., 400 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2005) 519 Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982) .............. 242 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ......... 117 Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) ......... 429 Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 126 S.Ct. 846, 163 L.Ed.2d 684 (2006) .............. 10 Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) .... 4, 133, 149 Ex parte Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 264 P.2d 513 (1953)........................................... 9 Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572 (1944) ..................... 225 Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886); ............... 32, 224

vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Ex parte Spencer, 228 U.S. 652, 33 S.Ct. 709, 57 L.Ed. 1010 (1913) ............... 326 Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830).......................................... 103 Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85, 19 L.Ed. 332 (1868) .............................................. 30 Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2007)526 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). ......... 4 Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1990) ........................... 513 Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963) .... 33, 35, 227, 326 Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) . 109, 212 Finch v. Miller, 491 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. 2007) ................................................... 305 First Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Gov't of Antigua & Barbuda-Permanent Mission, 877

F.2d 189 (2d Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 513 Fisher v. Angelone, 163 F.3d 835 (4th Cir. 1998) ............................................ 497 Flores v. Quarterman, 467 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006) ....................................... 308 Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 111 S.Ct. 850, 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991) ........... 340 Ford v. Schofield, 488 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Ga. 2007) ................................ 499 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed 2d 335 (1986) ..... 424 Forrest v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 342 Fed. App’x 560 (11th Cir. 2009) ................. 498 Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976) ..... 328 Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59, 95 S.Ct. 257, 42 L.Ed.2d 226 (1974) ....... 241 Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915) .......... 31, 460 Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2014) ................................................ 442 Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 127 S.Ct. 2321, 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007) .................. 481 Gaines v. Kelly, 202 F.3d 598 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................... 494 Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 115 S.Ct. 1948, 132 L.Ed.2d 36 (1995) 105, 112 General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2004) ............. 526 Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................... 294, 295 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) .. passim Gillard v. Mitchell, 445 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2006) ............................................. 499 Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 113 S.Ct. 2112, 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993) ...... 377,

386, 504 Gimenez v. Ochoa, 821 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................... 186 Ginsberg v. State of N.Y, 390 U.S. 629, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968) 149 Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) ... 172,

173, 176, 184, 532 Gordon v. Arkansas, 823 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2016) ........................................ 300 Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 113 S.Ct. 892, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) ........ 380 Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 107 S.Ct. 1671, 95 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) ...... 317 Grant v. Swarthout, 862 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2017) .......................................... 293 Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996) .... 337 Green v. French, 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998) ................................................ 436 Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 132 S.Ct. 38, 181 L.Ed.2d 336 (2011) .............. 426 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) ........... 424 Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) ........ 479 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). ...................... 4 Griffin v. Rogers, 399 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) ............................................... 308 Griffin v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 787 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2015)................. 529 Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) ....... 366 Grueninger v. Dir., Va. Dep’t of Corr., 813 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2016) ............... 448 Grullon v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................. 182 Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 125 S.Ct. 2582, 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005) .. 3, 4

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS vii

Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 487 Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 662 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2011) ................. 307 Hamilton v. Watkins, 436 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir. 1970) ...................................... 254 Hammond v. Hall, 586 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2009) ......................................... 419 Hannon v. Maschner, 845 F.2d 1553 (10th Cir. 1988) .................................... 254 Harper v. Ercole, 648 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2011) ................................................. 295 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011)

............................................................................................................. passim Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................... 307 Harris v. Martin, 834 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1987) ................................................. 529 Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) ............ 332 Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970) .......................................... 254 Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973)

.................................................................................................................. 104 Hentif v. Obama, 733 F.3d 12436 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .......................................... 519 Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) . 130, 204 Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1686, 203 L.Ed.2d 846 (2019) .. 384 Herrera–Gomez v. U.S., 755 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2014) ...................................... 205 Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) ............. 127 Hill v. Lockhart, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012) .......... 189 Hill v. U.S., 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) .......................... 117 Hohn v. U.S., 524 U.S. 236, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998) .............. 445 Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) ........ 430 Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) ...... 283 Horn v. Banks, 536 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 2147, 153 L.Ed.2d 301 (2002) ............ 386 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) ............. passim House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) ..................................... 431, 505 In re Bolin, 811 F.3d 403 (11th Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 203 In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729 (1993) ................ 10 In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d 391 (1993) ......... 7, 276 In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2009) ................................................. 173 In re Pickard, 681 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2012) ................................................. 536 In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770 (1998) ............................................................. 278 In re Williams, 364 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2004) ................................................... 206 Insignares v. Secretary, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) .. 179,

187 Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.

694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) ............................................... 528 Inthavong v. Lamarque, 420 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................. 488 Jackson v. Albany Appeal Bureau Unit, 442 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2006). ............... 520 Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2002) .......................................... 529 James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 104 S.Ct. 1830, 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984) ....... 341 Jenkins v. Byrd, 103 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Ga. 2000) .................................... 499 Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 129 S.Ct. 681, 172 L.Ed.2d 475 (2009)

.................................................................................................................. 264 Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of Cal., 493 U.S. 378, 110

S.Ct. 688, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990) ............................................................. 342 Johnson v. Acevedo, 572 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2009) .......................................... 486 Johnson v. U.S., 576 U.S. 591, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) .. 194, 380 Johnson v. U.S., 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) .................................................... 179

viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013) ............................................................................................................. passim

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)....... 31, 327 Jones v. Anderson-Tully Co., 722 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) ......... 523 Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) ........ 104 Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80

L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) .................................................................................... 107 Kaminski v. U.S., 339 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................... 108 Kansky v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 492 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2007)

.................................................................................................................. 519 Karis v. Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................ 494 Kernan v. Hinojosa, 578 U.S. 941, 136 S.Ct. 1603, 194 L.Ed.2d 701 (2016) .... 334 Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct.

2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)........................................................................ 95 Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986)

.................................................................................................................. 130 King v. Hobbs, 666 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2012) ................................................. 307 King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 2015) ........................................ 179, 187 Klapprott v. U.S., 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L. Ed. 266, 93 L. Ed. 1099

(1949) ........................................................................................................ 530 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ......... 493 LaCava v. Kyler, 398 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005) .................................................. 294 Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149

L.Ed.2d 608 (2001) ............................................................................ 139, 265 Lakey v. Hickman, 633 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................... 307, 308 Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 117 S.Ct. 1517, 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997) . 376 Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982) .......... 150 Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 166 L Ed. 2d 924 (2007) .. 283 Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007) ...... 6,

230, 279 LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.

2007) ......................................................................................................... 519 Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 122 S.Ct. 877, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002) ............... 339 Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct.

3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982)...................................................................... 106 Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151 (Ky. 2009) .................................... 8 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) ........... 302 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400

(1990) ........................................................................................................ 147 Liegakos v. Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381 (7th Cir. 1997) ........................................... 419 Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 434 Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................................. 496 Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1741, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965)

.................................................................................................... 41, 126, 365 Lizardo v. U.S., 619 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2010) .................................................... 518 Lockett v. Ericson, 656 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................... 73 Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) ..... 404,

444 Loden v. McCarty, 778 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2015) ............................................. 418 Loggins v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) ....................................... 442

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS ix

Lorraine v. Coyle, 291 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2002) .............................................. 499 Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015). ................................................ 295 Mabry v. Klimas, 448 U.S. 444, 100 S.Ct. 2755, 65 L.Ed.2d 897 (1980) .......... 239 Mackey v. U.S., 401 U.S. 667, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971)............... 365 Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 130 S.Ct. 2788, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010)

.......................................................................................................... 176, 262 Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) ......... 105 Mamone v. U.S., 559 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ....................... 108 Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968) ....... 40 Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 132 S.Ct. 912, 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012)289, 348 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) .. 36, 126, 365 Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561, 68 S.Ct. 240, 244, 92 L.Ed. 170 (1947) .......... 242 Marks v. U.S., 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) ................... 424 Marmolejos v. U.S., 789 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2015) .............................................. 180 Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36 (3d Cir. 2002) .......................................... 494 Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145

L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). ....................................................................................... 4 Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). .. 134, 349 Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998) ..... 184 Massaro v. U.S., 538 U.S. 500, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). ............ 9 Matter of West Texas Marketing Corp., 12 F.3d 497 (5th Cir. 1994). ............. 524 May v. Hines, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1145, 1149-50 (2021) (per curiam) ..... 441 Mayberry v. Dittmann, 904 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2018) ...................................... 299 Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005) .... 310, 312 McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Ind., Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir.

2017) ........................................................................................................... 92 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) III, 164,

169, 345 McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) .................... 519 McKane v. Thurston, 153 U.S. 684, 14 S.Ct. 913, 38 L.Ed. 876 (1894) ................ 3 McKaskle v. Vela, 464 U.S. 1053, 104 S.Ct. 736, 79 L.Ed.2d 195 (1984) ......... 234 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1448, 25 L.Ed.2d 763

(1970) ................................................................................................ 134, 328 McMonagle v. Meyer, 802 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) ..................... 307 McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934) ....................... 111 McNeil v. Cuyler, 782 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1986) ................................................ 496 McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013)

.................................................................................................................. 200 Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660, 125 S.Ct. 2088, 161 L.Ed.2d 982 (2005) ..... 118 Melancon v. Kaylo, 259 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2001) ............................................ 306 Mello v. DiPaulo, 295 F.3d 137 (1st Cir. 2002) ............................................... 494 Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) ........... 136 Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. U.S., 577 U.S. 250, 136 S.Ct. 750, 193

L.Ed.2d 652 (2016) .................................................................................... 292 Merritt v. Blaine, 326 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) ................................................ 308 Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) ..... 338 Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006) .......................................... 499 Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985)45, 399, 462 Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976 (10th Cir. 1998) ......................................... 294, 303 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ... 467

x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) . 36, 238 Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) ............ 484 Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961) ................... 61 Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) .. 498,

502, 503 Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 250, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016)

.......................................................................................................... 194, 380 Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543 (1923) .......... 31, 460 Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969) ................ 154 Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) ....................................... 494 Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................ 503 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) ..... 63 Mullins v. Nickel Plate Mining Co., 691 F.2d 971 (11th Cir. 1982). ................. 523 Murch v. Mottram, 409 U.S. 41, 93 S.Ct. 71, 34 L.Ed.2d 194 (1972) .............. 328 Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) 199, 336,

345 National Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449,

78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958) ......................................................... 341 Nedds v. Calderon, 678 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................... 307, 308 Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 1998) ............................................. 434 Nooner v. Hobbs, 689 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2012) .............................................. 205 O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, 117 S.Ct. 1969, 138 L.Ed.2d 351 (1997) . 189,

504 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) .... 230 Ochoa v. Sirmons, 485 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 182 Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) ........... 443 Osborne v. Dist. Att’y’s Office for the Third Jud. Dist., 423 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.

2005) ........................................................................................................... 60 Overbee v. Van Waters & Rogers, 765 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1985) ..................... 533 Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005) . 271,

293 Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) .... 134 Panama Processes, S.A. v. City Services Co., 789 F.2d 991 (2d Cir. 1986) ....... 523 Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007)

.......................................................................................................... 170, 424 Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970)

.......................................................................................................... 135, 328 Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2007);.......................................... passim Peguero v. U.S., 526 U.S. 23, 119 S.Ct. 961, 143 L.Ed.2d 18 (1999) ................ 117 Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed.

126 (1956) ................................................................................................. 254 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). ... 5,

133 Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) ...... 194,

366, 381 People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466, 106 Cal.Rptr. 2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225 (2001)

.................................................................................................................. 406 Persistence Software, Inc. v. The Object People, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 626 (N.D. Cal.

2001) ......................................................................................................... 513 Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968) ............... 105

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS xi

Phillips v. U.S., 668 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2012) ................................................... 182 Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) .............. 234 Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380,

113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993) ............................................. 525, 531 Platsis v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 946 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1991) ......................... 527 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 159 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2004) ............ 305 Pollard v. U.S., 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957) .................... 148 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). 62, 103 Prieto v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2006) ....................................... 305 Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) ............................................. 92 Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020) . 383 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S.Ct. 2686, 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004) ............. 445 Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) ........................ 346 Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006) .............. 468 Richards v. Quarterman, 566 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................... 497 Richardson v. Thomas, 930 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 2019) ...................................... 534 Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008) ............................................... 307 Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1987) .............................................. 532 Riva v. Ficco, 615 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 300 Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967).............. 240 Robinson v. Lewis, 9 Cal.5th 883 (2020) ......................................................... 278 Rodriguez v. Miller, 439 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2006) .............................................. 505 Rollins v. Willett, 770 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2014) ................................................. 73 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) .............. 244 Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) ................... 6 Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................. 303 Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006). ................................................ 304 Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) ............ 376 Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989 (1924) .................. 162 Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190

(1991) ........................................................................................................ 443 Sanders v. Ryder, 342 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................. 497 Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963) .... 34, 163, 185 Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 110 S.Ct. 2822, 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) . 372, 376 Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992) ..... 356 Schlueter v. Varner, 384 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2004) .............................................. 295 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 861, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) . passim Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003) .... 519 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th

Cir. 1993) ................................................................................................... 519 Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007) .. 469 Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) . 372 Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2001) .............................................. 419 Shelton v. Purkett, 563 F.3d 404 (8th Cir. 2009) ............................................. 307 Sherwood v. Prelesnik, 579 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2009) ...................................... 307 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) .......... 149 Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2007) ......................... 519 Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133

(1994) ........................................................................................................ 504

xii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 513

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed. 2d 233 (2011) . 62, 68 Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) .... 504 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)26, 169,

245 Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986) .......... 346 Smullen v. U.S., 94 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1996) ...................................................... 108 Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013)................................................... 305 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). 65, 148, 151 Spika v. Village of Lombard, Ill., 763 F.2d 282 (7th Cir. 1985) ........................ 531 Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) ......................................... 535 Spottsville v. Terry, 476 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2007) ........................................ 305 Square Const. Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 657 F.2d

68 (4th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................... 527 Stancle v. Clay, 692 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................. 301 State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) .................................................. 8 Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849

(1998) ........................................................................................................ 172 Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856, 122 S.Ct. 2578, 153 L.Ed.2d 762 (2002) ........ 339 Stokes v. Williams, 475 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2007) ............................................ 533 Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) ...... 40, 127 Streu v. Dormire, 557 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2009) ............................................... 307 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)

............................................................................................................. passim Suggs v. U.S., 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2013) ..................................................... 179 Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2011) ........................................... 497 Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................... 73 Tanner v. Yukins, 776 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2015) ............................................... 525 Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978) . 491, 492 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) ..... passim Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................. 419 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ..... 135,

171 Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1989) .......................................... 529 Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000).................. 526 Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) 36, 326, 461 Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) .................. 357 Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013) ..... 350 Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ...................... 523 Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011) ........ 155 Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001) ...... 189, 191 U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 108

S.Ct. 2268, 101 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988) ............................................................... 86 U.S. Steel v. M. DeMatteo Const. Co., 315 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2002) .................. 526 U.S. Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176

L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) .................................................................................... 528 U.S. v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 40 S.Ct. 448, 64 L.Ed. 808 (1920) .......... 148 U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1993) ................ 531 U.S. v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998) ............. 283

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS xiii

U.S. v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1988) ................................................. 423 U.S. v. Dado, 759 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 497 U.S. v. Espinoza-Saenz, 235 F.3d 501 (10th Cir. 2000) .................................... 181 U.S. v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) ................ 352 U.S. v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997) ............. 191 U.S. v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................................... 108 U.S. v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 273, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952) .............. 11 U.S. v. Hill, 196 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 1999) ......................................................... 444 U.S. v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................................. 497 U.S. v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................. 422 U.S. v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................ 108 U.S. v. Marcello, 212 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2000) .............................................. 308 U.S. v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 662 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 1981) ......... 527 U.S. v. One Urban Lot, 882 F.2d 582 (1st Cir. 1989) ....................................... 516 U.S. v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ................................. 306 U.S. v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) .................................................... 494 U.S. v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1990) ................................................ 494 U.S. v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002) ............................................... 498 U.S. v. Santarelli, 929 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 2019) .................................................. 181 U.S. v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 1330, 91 L.Ed. 1610 (1947). ................... 254 U.S. v. Thiele, 314 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................... 108 U.S. v. Toles, 297 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 2002) .................................................... 493 U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ....... 443 U.S. v. Wheaten, 826 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2016) ............................................... 296 U.S. v. Williams, 790 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2015) ............................................ 205 Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................ 296 Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................ 438 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) .. 186, 232 Vitrano v. U.S., 643 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................................. 181 Wade v. Battle, 379 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2004) ............................................. 307 Wainwright v. Lockhart, 80 F.3d 1226 (8th Cir. 1996) .................................... 495 Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982) ....... 6 Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................... 308 Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302 (1942) ............... 31 Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011) ......... 342 Wallace v. Mahanoy, SCI, 2 F.4th 133 (3d Cir. 2021)...................................... 297 Warner v. City of Bay St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1976) ....................... 523 Weaver v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017)

.................................................................................................................. 479 Weber v. Squier, 315 U.S. 810, 62 S.Ct. 800, 86 L.Ed. 1209 (1942) ................. 104 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) ..... 154 Welch v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016) .... 194, 195,

380 Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................... 179 West v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 803 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2015) ................... 527 Whab v. U.S., 408 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2005) ...................................................... 181 Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................... 292 Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 73 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 109 White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................ 308

xiv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007) .... 372, 382

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) 64, 67 Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2006) ............................... 495, 498 Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................. 309 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ..... 377,

412, 421 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) .. 41, 47 Williams v. U.S., 927 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2019) ........................................ 184, 535 Wilson v. Sellers, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 200 L.Ed.2d 530 (2018) 413, 448 Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 92 S.Ct. 407, 409, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971)

.................................................................................................................. 242 Wong Doo v. U.S., 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924) ................ 162 Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 182 L.Ed.2d 733 (2012) 318, 357 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006)

.................................................................................................................. 336 Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................ 181 Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 191 L.Ed.2d 464 (2015) ....... 387 Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 128 S.Ct. 743, 169 L.Ed.2d 583 (2008) ... 47,

421, 432 Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992) ..... 33, 44,

398 Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) ....................................... 524 Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004)

.................................................................................................................. 439 Yates v. Aiken, 484 U.S. 211, 108 S.Ct. 534, 98 L.Ed.2d 546 (1988) ................ 377 Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991) ... 333 York v. Galetka, 314 F.3d 522 (10th Cir. 2003) ............................................... 309 Zurich North America v. Matrix Service, Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) 527

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). ............................................................................ 10 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ............................................................................. 95 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) ............................................................. 10, 87, 88 28 U.S.C. § 2242 ............................................................................... 312 28 U.S.C. § 2244 .......................................................................... passim 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) ............................................................... 202 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) .............................................................. 200 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) ...................................................................... 257 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) .................................................................. 265 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) .............................................................. 269, 275 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .......................................................................... passim 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) ............................................................... 10, 88, 435 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). ............................................................................ 10 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) .................................................................. 242 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) ...................................................................... 227 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3) ...................................................................... 227

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS xv

28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) ........................................................................... 231 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) ............................................................................ 34 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) ...................................................................... 436 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i) ............................................................................ 133 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) ..................................................................... 11, 116 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). ............................................................................ 11 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). ............................................................................ 12 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) ....................................................................... 257 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) ....................................................................... 266 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) ....................................................... 210, 212 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1)(D) ............................................................... 267 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) ................................................................. 200 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(e) ......................................................................... 91 Cal. Pen. Code § 1506 ........................................................................ 10

OTHER AUTHORITIES

A. Christopher Bryant, Retroactive Application Of “New Rules” And The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act, 70 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1, 17 (2003) ........................................................................................................ 428

Adam N. Steinman, Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners: How Should AEDPA's Standard of Review Operate After Williams v. Taylor?, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 1493, 1497 n.5, 1499 n.25 (2001) .................. 35

Allen, Toward a Unified Theory of Retroactivity, 54 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 105, 113 (2010) ........................................................................................................ 365

Amar, An Enigmatic Court? Examining the Roberts Court as it Begins Year Three, 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 523, 525 (Mar. 2008)............................................ 431

Anon., 78 Eng. Rep. 27 (1586) ........................................................................ 103 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)481 Benjamin Vetter, Comment, Habeas, Section 1983, and Post-Conviction Access

to DNA Evidence, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 587 (2004). .......................................... 62 Brennan, Federal Habeas Corpus and State Prisoners: An Exercise in

Federalism, 7 Utah L. Rev. 423 (1961) ....................................................... 326 Clearly Established Law in Habeas Review, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 335, 344 (2007)

.................................................................................................................. 431 Danielle R. Acker Susanj, Retroactivity, Strickland, and Alien Criminal

Defendants: How the Chaidez Decision Raised More Questions Than it Answered, 162 U. PA. L. Rev. Online 55, 57 (2013) ................................... 379

Fairfax, A Fair Trial, Not a Perfect One: The Early Twentieth Century Campaign for the Harmless Error Rule, 93 Marquette L. Rev. 433 (2009) .................. 478

Jordan Steiker, Restructuring Post-conviction Review of Federal Constitutional Claims Raised by State Prisoners: Confronting the New Face of Excessive Proceduralism, 1998 U. Chi. Legal F. 315 (1998) ......................................... 61

Kara B. Murphy, Comment Representing Noncitizens in Criminal Proceedings: Resolving Unanswered Questions in Padilla v. Kentucky, 101 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1371, 1382 (2011) ................................................................. 379

Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660, 125 S.Ct. 2088, 161 L.Ed.2d 982 (2005) .... 118, 483

xvi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Michael C. McLaughlin, It Adds Up: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and the Cumulative Deficiency Doctrine, 30 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 859 (2014) .............. 499

Rachel A. Van Cleave, When Is an Error Not an “Error”? Habeas Corpus and Cumulative Error Analysis, 46 Baylor L. Rev. 59 (1994) ............................. 498

Reitz, Federal Habeas Corpus: Impact of an Abortive State Proceeding, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 1315 (1961).................................................................................... 326

Ruth A. Moyer, To Err is Human; To Cumulate, Judicious: The Need for U.S. Supreme Court Guidance on Whether Federal Habeas Courts Reviewing State Convictions May Cumulatively Assess Strickland Errors, 61 Drake L. Rev. 447 (2013). ........................................................................................ 499

Steven S. Gensler, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 60 ...................................................................................................... 525

Steven R. Reinhardt, The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, 113 Mich. L. Rev. 1219, 1236 (2015) ........................... 42, 430

RULES

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) ........................................................................ 517, 520 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) ........................................................................... 524 Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)................................................................................ 259 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) .............................................................................. 516, 519 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) .................................................................................. 517, 520 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ..................................................................................... 196, 206 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) ................................................................................ 312 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) ........................................................................................ 515 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(4) ............................................................................ 516, 519 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2) ............................................................................ 515, 519 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(c) ......................................................................................... 517 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ........................................................................................ 519 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) ........................................................................................ 523 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) .................................................................................... 529 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) .................................................................................... 525 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). ........................................................... 525, 526, 527, 528 Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) ...................................................................................... 517 Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) ................................................................................. 518 Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2) ................................................................................. 518 Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) ...................................................................................... 518 Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United

States District Courts................................................................................. 311 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts................................................................................................ 244, 316 Rule 5(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts ................................................................................... 244, 316 Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United

States District Courts................................................................................. 463 Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts........................................................................................................ 254

INTRODUCTION TO HABEAS CORPUS xvii

Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ........................................................................................... 164

TREATISES

Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction 939 (5th ed. 2007) .......................... 379 Means, Federal Habeas Manual, A Guide to Habeas Corpus Litigation, Chapter

13 (West 2017 ed.). ....................................................................................... 9 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 4:4 (West 2021 ed.) ............................... 398 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 5:10 (West 2021 ed.). .............................. 12 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 5:11 (West 2021 ed.). .............................. 12 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 6:19 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 134 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 6:20 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 171 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 6:9 (West 2021 ed.) ......................... 52, 130 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 7:4 (West 2021 ed.) ............................... 107 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 8:4 (West 2021 ed.) ....................... 152, 153 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 8:6 (West 2021 ed.) ............................... 154 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 8:8 (West 2021 ed.) ............................... 154 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 23:19 (West 2021 ed.) ................... 240, 242 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 23:22 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 245 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 23:4 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 228 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 24:18 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 353 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 24:19 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 356 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 24:20 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 357 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 24:22 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 357 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 24:5 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 330 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:13 (West 2021 ed.) ... 259, 261, 262, 264 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:14 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 264 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:15 (West 2021 ed.) ................... 266, 267 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:17 (West 2021 ed.). .......................... 268 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:20 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 272 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:21 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 277 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:22 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 275 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:23 (West 2021 ed.) ................... 280, 281 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:29 (West 2021 ed.). .......................... 279 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:30 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 274 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:36 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 284 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:39 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 291 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 25:63 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 311 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 26:19 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 383 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 26:4 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 365 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 27:2 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 199 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 27:7 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 201 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 29:10 (West 2021 ed.) ................... 341, 342 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 29:14 (West 2021 ed.) ................... 345, 346 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 29:20 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 431 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 29:29 (West 2021 ed.) ........................... 427 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 30:4 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 481 Means, Postconviction Remedies, § 35:2 (West 2021 ed.) ............................. 349

xviii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const., Amend. VI ................................................................................... 132 U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2 ................................................................................... 147

by brian r. means

Documents