Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edwin Arthur AVERY v. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Federal prisoners can seek postconviction relief by filing an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. State prisoners can seek federal postconviction relief by filing an application under § 2254.
The issue in this case concerns second-or-successive applications. As relevant here, the law provides that a “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” § 2244(b)(1) (emphasis added).
The text of that second-or-successive statute covers only applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254. Yet six Courts of Appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254 and by federal prisoners under § 2255, even though the text of the law refers only to § 2254. See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315 (CA2 2013); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135–136 (CA3 2014); In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446, 447 (CA5 2018); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 836 (CA7 2002); Winarske v. United States, 913 F.3d 765, 768–769 (CA8 2019); In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 1340 (CA11 2016).
After Avery's case was decided, the Sixth Circuit recently rejected the other Circuits' interpretation of the second-or-successive statute and held that the statute covers only applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254. Williams v. United States, 927 F.3d 427 (2019).
Importantly, the United States now agrees with the Sixth Circuit that “Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 motions” and that the contrary view is “inconsistent with the text of Section 2244.” Brief in Opposition 10, 13. In other words, the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government's favor.
In a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this question of federal law.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-633
Decided: March 23, 2020
Court: Supreme Court of the United States.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)