Skip to main content

Johnson v. Williams

Docket No.11-465
Op. Below9th Cir.
ArgumentOct 3, 2012
Vote9-0
AuthorSamuel Alito
OpinionFeb 20, 2013
TermOctober Term 2012
SCOTUS PageOpinion

Holding

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant"s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Judgment

Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on Feb 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Holding: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant”s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Judgment:”Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Proceedings & orders timeline

Oct 10, 2011
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2011)
Oct 10, 2011
Appendix of Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden filed.
Nov 1, 2011
Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2011.
Dec 9, 2011
Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 21, 2011.
Dec 21, 2011
Brief of respondent Tara Sheneva Williams in opposition filed. (Distributed)Dec 21, 2011
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Tara Sheneva Williams. (Distributed)
Dec 28, 2011
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2012.
Jan 4, 2012
Reply of petitioner Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)
Jan 13, 2012
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
Jan 13, 2012
Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Feb 10, 2012
The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 28, 2012.
Feb 17, 2012
The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 29, 2012.
Mar 28, 2012
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Mar 28, 2012
Brief of petitioner Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden filed.
Apr 4, 2012
Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed.
May 29, 2012
Brief of respondent Tara Sheneva Williams filed.
Jun 5, 2012
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
Jun 28, 2012
Reply of petitioner Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden filed.
Jul 23, 2012
SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Jul 24, 2012
CIRCULATED.
Jul 27, 2012
Record from U.S.D.C. for Central District of California received from Chamber of Judge Reinhardt of the U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit.
Aug 7, 2012
Record received fro U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 envelope)
Oct 3, 2012
Argued. For petitioner: Stephanie Brenan, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Kurt D. Hermansen, San Diego, Cal.
Feb 20, 2013
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Mar 13, 2013
Petition for Rehearing filed.
Mar 20, 2013
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
Apr 15, 2013
Rehearing DENIED.
Apr 15, 2013
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jun 3, 2013
Record returned to U.S. District Court for Central District of California.

Welcome to SCOTUSblog

Tell us a bit about yourself so we can tailor what you see. You can update these any time in your account.