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

 

Gonzalez v. Crosby

Docket No.: 04-6432
Certiorari Granted: 1/14/2005
Argued: April 25, 2005
Decided: June 23, 2005

Topics:

Judicial Power, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, EPA, abuse of discretion, habeas, habeas corpus, probable cause

PartyNames: Aurelio O. Gonzalez v. James V. Crosby, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Petitioner: Aurelio O. Gonzalez
Respondent: James V. Crosby, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: 366 F3d 1253
Supreme Court Docket

Aurelio O. Gonzalez
v.
James V. Crosby, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
545 U.S. 524 (2005)
Background:

The courts of appeals are divided about the jurisdiction of district courts to entertain Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions in habeas corpus cases. Seven circuits address the continuing viability of Rule 60(b) on a flexible case-by-case basis, while three circuits, including the Eleventh Circuit below, hold that AEDP A erects a bright line jurisdictional bar to Rule 60(b) motions in habeas corpus proceedings. The conflict among the circuits has exacerbated since the Court dismissed as improvidently granted Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, 537 U.S. 88 (2002). The instant petition replicates for the Court's consideration the questions left unanswered in Abdur'Rahman, without the procedural and jurisdictional difficulties that caused it to be dismissed:

Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

Question Presented:

The courts of appeals are divided about the jurisdiction of district courts to entertain Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions in habeas corpus cases. Seven circuits address the continuing viability of Rule 60(b) on a flexible case-by-case basis, while three circuits, including the Eleventh Circuit below, hold that AEDP A erects a bright line jurisdictional bar to Rule 60(b) motions in habeas corpus proceedings. The conflict among the circuits has exacerbated since the Court dismissed as improvidently granted Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, 537 U.S. 88 (2002). The instant petition replicates for the Court's consideration the questions left unanswered in Abdur'Rahman, without the procedural and jurisdictional difficulties that caused it to be dismissed: I. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that every Rule 60(b) motion (other than for fraud under (b)(3)) constitutes a prohibited "second or successive" petition as a matter of law, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits.II. Whether a court of appeals abuses its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when the failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever receiving any adjudication on his claims on the merits.

Question:

Did Gonzalez's Rule 60(b) motion constitute a second or successive habeas petition?

Gonzalez v. Crosby
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 25, 2005

Holding: affirmed
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)