Supreme Court of the United States · Federal Courts
Federal Courtscertiorari grantedhabeas corpussuccessive petitionsabuse of the writdeliberate abandonmentin forma pauperis
Facts
The opinion text states only that the petitioner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis and sought certiorari after proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit. The Court granted both requests. The Court also identified a habeas corpus question involving whether inclusion of a claim in a subsequent habeas petition constitutes abuse of the writ absent a showing by the State that the claim was deliberately abandoned earlier. No additional underlying facts are provided in the opinion text.
Issue
Whether, to establish that inclusion of a claim in a subsequent habeas corpus petition constitutes abuse of the writ, the State must demonstrate that the claim was deliberately abandoned in an earlier habeas petition.
Rule
No substantive rule is established in the provided opinion text. The Court only granted certiorari and requested briefing and argument on whether the State must show deliberate abandonment to establish abuse of the writ.
🔒
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 a capital habeas case from Georgia, the Supreme Court grants Lena Ortiz leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grants certiorari. The order also directs the parties to brief whether a claim raised in a later habeas petition counts as abuse of the writ unless the State proves the claim was deliberately abandoned earlier.
What is the strongest conclusion about the legal effect of the Court's order?
Explanation. The majority text does not resolve the abuse-of-the-writ question. It grants in forma pauperis status, grants certiorari, and requests briefing and argument on an added question. That means no merits rule was established on whether the State must show deliberate abandonment. (Derived from McCleskey v. Zant (n.d.).)