Walker v. Martin
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09-996 | 9th Cir. | Nov 29, 2010 | Feb 23, 2011 | 9-0 | Ginsburg | OT 2010 |
Holding: A California rule requiring state habeas petitions to be filed as promptly as the circumstances allow constitutes an independent state ground that is adequate to bar habeas relief in federal court.
Plain English Holding: A California rule requiring state habeas petitions to be filed “as promptly as the circumstances allow”? constitutes an independent state ground that is adequate to bar habeas relief in federal court.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on February 23, 2011.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Californias timeliness rule is an adequate state ground to deny federal habeas review (Jud Campbell - Guest, February 24, 2011)
- Opinion analysis: Californias timeliness rule is an adequate state ground to deny federal habeas review (Jud Campbell - Guest, February 24, 2011)
- Opinion analysis: Californias timeliness rule is an adequate state ground to deny federal habeas review (Jud Campbell - Guest, February 24, 2011)
- Argument recap: Too late for habeas relief (Jud Campbell - Guest, December 1, 2010)
- Argument preview: Is Californias timeliness rule adequate to bar federal habeas relief? (Jud Campbell - Guest, November 26, 2010)
- Argument preview: Is Californias timeliness rule adequate to bar federal habeas relief? (Jud Campbell - Guest, November 26, 2010)
- Argument preview: Is Californias timeliness rule adequate to bar federal habeas relief? (Jud Campbell - Guest, November 26, 2010)
- Credit card holders' rights (Lyle Denniston, June 21, 2010)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner James Walker, Warden, et al.
- Brief for Respondent Charles W. Martin
- Reply Brief for Petitioner James Walker, Warden, et al.
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Federal Courts Scholars in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Cory R. Maples in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Federal Defenders for the Central, Eastern, Northern Districts of California and Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc., in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Habeas Corpus Resource Center in Support of Respondent
Certiorari-Stage Documents
- Opinion below (9th Circuit, unpublished)
- Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (unavailable)
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner James Walker, Warden, et al.
- Brief for Respondent Charles W. Martin
- Reply Brief for Petitioner James Walker, Warden, et al.
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Federal Courts Scholars in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Cory R. Maples in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Federal Defenders for the Central, Eastern, Northern Districts of California and Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc., in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Habeas Corpus Resource Center in Support of Respondent
Certiorari-Stage Documents
- Opinion below (9th Circuit, unpublished)
- Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (unavailable)