210
O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment
if need be, review by the Supreme Court)"), it says nothing about whether a request for counsel or motion for a stay suffices to create a "case" that is "pending" within the meaning of the Lindh rule.
* * *
In sum, we hold that, for purposes of applying the rule announced in Lindh, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court. Because respondent's federal habeas corpus application was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date, that application is subject to AEDPA's amendments.1 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.2
It is so ordered.
Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment. The Court today holds that the post-Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) version of 28
1 Justice O'Connor contends that we may have misapplied our test because a filing labeled "Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues" placed the merits of respondent's claims before the District Court before AEDPA's effective date. Post, at 211 (opinion concurring in judgment). That is simply not so. Respondent's "Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues" plainly stated that "[b]ased on a preliminary review of case materials, counsel believes the following federal constitutional issues exist in this case and are among the issues that may be raised on [Garceau's] behalf in a petition for habeas corpus." App. to Brief in Opposition 227 (emphasis added). The clear import of this language is that the filing itself did not seek any relief on the merits or place the merits of respondent's claims before the District Court for decision. Rather, the document simply alerted the District Court as to some of the possible claims that might be raised by respondent in the future. Indeed, the habeas corpus application respondent eventually filed contained numerous issues that were not mentioned in the "Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues."
2 In view of the question on which we granted certiorari, we decline petitioner's request to rule on the merits of respondent's habeas application.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007