Cite as: 512 U. S. 849 (1994)
Opinion of O'Connor, J.
make an express exception for the appointment of counsel "at any stage of the case," Rule 8(c), a further indication that the rules otherwise apply after an application for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed in the district court. This consistent textual focus on the existence of an "application" leads me to conclude that the district court's authority to issue a stay pursuant to § 2251 also requires the filing of an "application."*
Congress is apparently aware of the clumsiness of its handiwork in authorizing appointment of an attorney under 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B) "[i]n any post conviction proceeding," while leaving intact 28 U. S. C. § 2251, which authorizes a stay only when a "habeas corpus proceeding is pending." See S. 1441, § 3(b), 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993). The remedy for this problem, however, lies with Congress, and not, as the Court would have it, by reading the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4393, to impliedly amend the habeas statute. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 134 (1974). Such a reading is inconsistent with our prior cases and with the important federalism principles underlying the limited habeas jurisdiction of the federal courts. I would leave the matter to Congress to resolve. Finally, prisoners can avoid the need for a stay by filing a prompt request for appointment of counsel well in advance of the scheduled execution.
In the judgment currently under review, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that petitioner's "motion for stay of execution and appointment of counsel is . . . denied." 7 F. 3d 47, 49 (1993) (per curiam). Because I agree with the Court that petitioner is entitled to an attorney, I concur
*Because the habeas statute itself addresses when district courts may order a stay of state proceedings, the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, does not provide a residual source of authority for a stay. "Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling." Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34, 43 (1985).
863
Page: Index Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007