Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2000

Slack v. McDaniel

529 U.S. 473 | 120 S. Ct. 1595 | 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 | 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3000 | 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 257

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Slack holds that post-AEDPA appeals require a certificate of appealability, procedural dismissals require a debatable constitutional claim and a debatable procedural ruling, and a petition refiled after a non-merits exhaustion dismissal is not second or successive.

Background

Antonio Slack was convicted of second-degree murder in Nevada in 1990. After his direct appeal failed, he filed a federal habeas petition in 1991. Because he wished to pursue claims not yet presented to Nevada courts, Slack asked the federal district court to hold the petition while he exhausted state remedies. Instead, without objection from the State, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice and expressly gave Slack leave to renew after exhausting state remedies.

Following unsuccessful state postconviction litigation, Slack filed a new federal habeas petition in 1995 and later amended it to assert 14 claims. The State argued that the petition was mixed, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and that claims absent from Slack's 1991 petition were barred as an abuse of the writ. The District Court treated the 1995 filing as a second or successive petition, dismissed the new claims with prejudice as abusive, and dismissed the remaining claims because the petition was mixed.

Slack filed a notice of appeal in 1998. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit treated it as a request for the pre-AEDPA certificate of probable cause and denied it. Slack sought review of the conclusion that his post-exhaustion petition was second or successive.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether AEDPA's certificate-of-appealability requirement governs an appeal initiated after AEDPA's effective date when the habeas proceeding began in the district court before that date.

Holding

Yes. A petitioner who initiates appellate review after April 24, 1996, must satisfy AEDPA's certificate-of-appealability requirements, even if the district-court habeas proceeding began before AEDPA.

Reasoning

AEDPA's amendments to § 2254 govern entitlement to relief in district-court habeas proceedings, while § 2253(c) governs the distinct appellate proceeding. Although an appeal continues the same litigation in a broad sense, it is a separate procedural step for purposes of deciding when an appellate statute applies.

An appellate case under AEDPA commences when the applicant files a request for a certificate of appealability. Because Slack sought appellate review in 1998, two years after AEDPA took effect, § 2253(c) governed his right to appeal. The Ninth Circuit should therefore have treated his notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of appealability rather than as a request for the former certificate of probable cause.

Issue #2

What must a habeas petitioner show to obtain a certificate of appealability when the district court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds without reaching the constitutional claims.

Holding

The petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate both whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct.

Reasoning

Section 2253(c)'s requirement of a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right does not prevent review of procedural dismissals. Reading the statute to bar such appeals would mean that a prisoner with a potentially valid constitutional claim could obtain no review even when the district court's procedural dismissal was erroneous, a result Congress did not clearly intend.

The Court read AEDPA's standard in light of Barefoot v. Estelle. A substantial showing exists when reasonable jurists could debate the disposition, agree that it should have been different, or conclude that the issues deserve encouragement to proceed further. When the merits were reached, the question is whether reasonable jurists could debate or find error in the district court's assessment of the constitutional claim.

A procedural dismissal requires two threshold showings: debatability as to the underlying constitutional claim and debatability as to the procedural ruling. A court may address whichever component is clearer from the record, consistent with the principle of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions. If a plain procedural bar correctly disposes of the case, no certificate should issue.

Slack had argued only that the District Court's procedural ruling was wrong, not that his petition made the required substantial constitutional showing. The Court therefore did not decide whether he satisfied the constitutional component, leaving that question for proceedings on remand.

Issue #3

Whether a habeas petition filed after an earlier petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies is a second or successive petition subject to abuse-of-the-writ restrictions.

Holding

No. When the earlier petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust before any claim was adjudicated on the merits, the later post-exhaustion petition is treated as a first petition, not as second or successive.

Reasoning

The question concerned Slack's entitlement to relief in the district court, so pre-AEDPA law controlled. Under that law, the phrase “second or successive” is a habeas term of art, not simply a description of any petition that happens to be filed later in time.

Rose v. Lundy requires dismissal of mixed petitions but contemplates that the prisoner may return to federal court after exhausting state remedies. Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal likewise recognized that a prisoner whose petition was dismissed for nonexhaustion and who later exhausted may have the claims adjudicated under the standards applicable to a first petition.

Treating a dismissed mixed petition as an operative first petition would improperly restrict a returning prisoner to the claims originally pleaded, often in an uncounseled and short-lived federal filing. It could bar nonfrivolous claims developed during the very state exhaustion process that the Rose dismissal required, despite the fact that no federal court had considered any constitutional claim.

Slack's 1991 petition was dismissed without prejudice under the Rose procedure, and no claim in it was adjudicated during its three months in federal court. His 1995 petition therefore was not second or successive, and the District Court's abuse-of-the-writ dismissal rested on an erroneous procedural premise.

The Court acknowledged the State's concern about repetitive mixed petitions, but concluded that other tools address that problem. States may enforce proper state procedural bars; AEDPA contains provisions concerning exhaustion; and federal courts may impose conditions on dismissals or dismiss with prejudice for failure to comply with an order requiring a returning petitioner to bring only exhausted claims. No such condition limited Slack's initial dismissal.

Concurrences

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens agreed with the judgment and with the Court's analysis except for Part II. In his view, the pre-AEDPA version of § 2253 should govern the right to appeal in a habeas proceeding that began in district court before AEDPA's effective date, even if the notice of appeal was filed afterward.

He relied on the approach adopted by most Courts of Appeals, which treated the date the habeas proceeding commenced—not the date appellate review was sought—as controlling for this transitional question. Nevertheless, he joined the Court's resolution of the certificate standard and the second-or-successive issue.

Dissents

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia agreed with the Court except for its Parts III and IV addressing whether Slack's post-exhaustion petition was second or successive. Joined by Justice Thomas, he thought the Court departed from the ordinary meaning of “second or successive” by treating a later petition as a first petition regardless of the claims it contained.

In his view, Rose v. Lundy established only that a petitioner whose mixed petition is dismissed may return after exhausting the same claims. It did not establish that the earlier petition should be treated as though it never existed or authorize a petitioner to add new claims and repeat the cycle of filing, dismissal, exhaustion, and refiling.

Justice Scalia also read Martinez-Villareal narrowly. That case did not involve exhaustion and did not support the majority's broad rule; indeed, it distinguished a previously raised claim from a claim that had not been raised earlier. He would treat Slack's inclusion of new and unexhausted claims as making the later petition second or successive, deny a certificate of appealability, and affirm the Ninth Circuit.

Although he accepted that district courts could use orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 to curb repetitive filings, he believed that approach unnecessarily burdens courts and leaves States dependent on judicial discretion. In his view, the statutory restriction on second or successive petitions directly addresses the problem of vexatious, repetitive habeas litigation.