Cite as: 538 U. S. 202 (2003)
Syllabus
Under the Ninth Circuit's view, that presumption would rarely apply in a capital case, as § 2254(e)(1) would be applicable only to those capital prisoners who did not need counsel and did not seek a stay. AEDPA's text, however, contains no indication that § 2254(e)(1) was intended to have such a limited scope. Nor is it reasonable to believe that Congress meant for a capital prisoner to avoid application of § 2254(e)(1)'s stringent requirements simply by filing a request for counsel or a motion for a stay before filing an actual habeas application. Finally, the procedural rules governing § 2254 cases reinforce the Court's view. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in the habeas context to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Habeas Corpus Rules. Because nothing in the Habeas Rules contradicts Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3—"[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint"—the logical conclusion is that a habeas suit begins with the filing of a habeas application, the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case. Pp. 205-208.
(b) As the task here is to apply Lindh to an action under chapter 153, respondent's request to look at provisions in chapter 154 is inapposite. Moreover, his reliance on McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849, which involved the interpretation of § 2251, not § 2254, and must be understood in light of the Court's concern to protect the right to counsel contained in 18 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B), and Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236, which says nothing about whether a request for counsel or motion for a stay suffices to create a "case" that is "pending" within the Lindh rule's meaning, is misplaced. Pp. 208-210.
275 F. 3d 769, reversed and remanded.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 210. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 213.
Janis S. McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Clayton S. Tanaka, Deputy Attorney General.
203
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007