Brief filed: 01/28/2025
Documents
Rivers v. Lumpkin
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 23-1345
Argument(s)
This case is about a habeas petitioner's ability to litigate all viable claims in a single proceeding. The dispute is whether, if the district court has denied a first habeas petition and an appeal is pending, the petitioner may litigate a motion to supplement or amend the claims in the petition, or whether the motion is an improper second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). A mid-appeal amendment request is not a second or successive petition. If the district court indicates a mid-appeal amendment request has merit under Civil Rule 62.1, and if the appellate court remands for consideration of the motion under Appellate Rule 12.1, the limited remand is a mere offshoot of the original appeal itself. So, logically, if the entire appeal is part of the first habeas application, then a mid-appeal amendment request and a corresponding limited remand likewise remain part of the first application.
Author(s)
Shelley Fite, Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, National Association of Federal Defenders; David M. Porter, Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Rachel Julagay and David F. Ness, Federal Defenders of Montana; Rene Valladares, Jonathan Kirshbaum, and Jeremy Baron, Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada
