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


Mayle v. Felix

Docket No.: 04-563
Certiorari Granted: Jan 7 2005
Argued: April 19, 2005
Decided: June 23, 2005


Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Civil Procedure, Confrontation Clause, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Miranda, Sixth Amendment, Title VII, court appointed counsel, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless-error, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder, res judicata, retaliation, self-incrimination

PartyNames: Deneice A. Mayle, Warden v. Jacoby Lee Felix
Petitioner: Deneice A. Mayle, Warden
Respondent: Jacoby Lee Felix

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 379 F3d 612
Supreme Court Docket

Deneice A. Mayle, Warden
Jacoby Lee Felix
545 U.S. 644 (2005)
Question Presented:

When a habeas petitioner challenging a state judgment amends his petition to include a new claim, does the amendment relate back to the date of the filing of his petition and thus avoid the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(d)(1), so long as the new claim stems from the prisoner's trial, conviction, or sentence?


Federal habeas law allowed an amended petition to relate back to the filing date of the original petition if both arose out out of the same "conduct, transaction or occurrence" the original set forth. Did the trial and conviction qualify as a "conduct, transaction or occurrence?"

Mayle v. Felix

April 19, 2005

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By:

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

Mayle v. Felix
Case Documents

1Opinion in Mayle v. Felix
2Slip Opinion in Mayle v. Felix
Additional documents for this case are pending review.