Banister v. Davis
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kagan
*1702 A state prisoner is entitled to one fair opportunity to seek federal habeas relief from his conviction. But he may not usually make a "second or successive habeas corpus application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). The question here is whether a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a habeas court's judgment qualifies as such a successive petition. We hold it does not. A Rule 59(e) motion is instead part and parcel of the first habeas proceeding.
I
This case is about two procedural rules. First, Rule 59(e) applies in federal civil litigation generally. (Habeas…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by769 opinions
- Kathleen O'Donnell v. Andrew SaulCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- BLOM Bank SAL v. HonickmanSupreme Court of the United States · 2025
- Anila Daulatzai v. State of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2024
- Acadian Diagnostic Lab, L.L.C. v. Quality ToxicoloCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
- Federal Trade Commission v. Andris PukkeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2022
764 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.