Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Abdur'Rahman v. Bell

Docket No.: 01-9094
Certiorari Granted: Apr 22 2002
Argued: November 6, 2002
Decided: December 10, 2002


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Appellate Procedure, Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, probable cause

PartyNames: Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. Ricky Bell, Warden
Petitioner: Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman
Respondent: Ricky Bell, Warden

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: CA 6, 226 F.3d 696. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The district court in this case held that it was powerless to consider many ofPetitioner's federal habeas claims becaus e they had not been sufficiently presented in a petition for discretionary review to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The districtcourt granted Petitioner relief as to other claims in a ruling that was later reversed on appeal. While the appeal was pending, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued Rule 39 ("TN Rule 39"), which on its face applies to Petitioner's case, and which expressly "clarifies)" that such a di scretionary application is not required for"exhaustion of state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes." Petitioner's
Supreme Court Docket

Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman
Ricky Bell, Warden
537 U.S. 88 (2002)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition. ORDERED 10/24/02: The parties are directed to file suppl emental briefs addressing the followingquestions: "Did the Sixth Circuit have juri sdiction to review the district court's order, dated November 27, 2001, transferring Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง163 1? Does this Court have jurisdiction toreview the Sixth Circuit's order, dated F ebruary 11, 2002, denying leave to file a second habeas corpus petition?" Expedited briefing schedule


Does a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, filed in a habeas corpus proceeding to inform the federal courts of a state court's interpretation of state procedural laws, constitute a "successive" habeas corpus petition?

Abdur'Rahman v. Bell

November 6, 2002

Holding: dismissed
Decision: Decision: 8 votes for Bell, 1 vote(s) against

Abdur'Rahman v. Bell
Case Documents

1Opinion in Abdur'Rahman v. Bell
2Opinion in Abdur'Rahman v. Bell
Additional documents for this case are pending review.