Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusAEDPARule 59(e)Rule 59(e)AEDPA28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)second or successive petition
Facts
Banister, a state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief from his conviction, principally alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied the habeas application. Within Rule 59(e)'s 28-day deadline, Banister moved to alter or amend the judgment, asserting what he described as manifest errors of law and fact in the court's just-issued decision. The district court denied that motion, and Banister then filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the Rule 59(e) denial.
Issue
Whether a timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a habeas court's judgment qualifies as a "second or successive habeas corpus application" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). If not, the motion is part of the original habeas proceeding and postpones the time to appeal until the motion is resolved.
Rule
A timely Rule 59(e) motion in a federal habeas case is not a second or successive habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Instead, it is part and parcel of the prisoner's first habeas proceeding because it is tightly limited in time and substance, suspends the finality of the original judgment, and merges with that judgment for appellate review.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, an Arizona prisoner filed his first federal habeas petition challenging his robbery conviction. The district court denied relief, and 21 days later he filed a Rule 59(e) motion arguing the court had misread trial testimony and misstated the governing ineffective-assistance standard; the court denied that motion, and he filed a notice of appeal 20 days later.
How should the court of appeals treat the timeliness of the appeal?
Explanation. A timely Rule 59(e) motion in a habeas case is not a second or successive application under § 2244(b). It is part and parcel of the first habeas proceeding, suspends the judgment's finality, and causes the appeal clock to run from the order disposing of the motion. Because the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days after denial of the Rule 59(e) motion, it is timely. (Derived from Banister v. Davis (n.d.).)