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


Bell v. Thompson

Docket No.: 04-514
Certiorari Granted: 1/7/2005
Argued: April 26, 2005
Decided: June 27, 2005


Judicial Power, Appellate Procedure, abuse of discretion, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder

PartyNames: Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gregory Thompson
Petitioner: Ricky Bell, Warden
Respondent: Gregory Thompson

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: 373 F3d 688
Supreme Court Docket

Ricky Bell, Warden
Gregory Thompson
545 U.S. 794 (2005)
Consideration Limited:


Question Presented:

I. By withholding issuance of its mandate affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief for more than six months beyond the time for mandatory issuance under Fed. R. App. P. 1(d)(2)(D) and then by issuing a new opinion and judgment remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of materials contained in a postjudgment motion filed by the respondent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), did the Sixth Circuit violate the terms of 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)? . II. Did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withdrawing its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(D) made issuance of the mandate mandatory, without notice to the parties or any finding that the court's action was necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly where state judicial proceedings to enforce the inmate's death sentence had progressed in reliance upon the finality of the judgment in the federal habeas proceedings? III. By remanding the case for a "full evidentiary hearing" on respondent's initial habeas corpus petition without any determination that the conditions prescribed in 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2) were met, did the Sixth Circuit violate the terms of AEDPA and this Court's decision in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000)?


After the U.S. Supreme Court had denied certiorari and a petition for rehearing to a death-row prisoner's case, did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withholding its mandate in the case for more than five months without entering a formal order?

Bell v. Thompson

April 26, 2005

Holding: reversed
Vote: 5-4
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

Bell v. Thompson
Case Documents

1Opinion in Bell v. Thompson
2Slip Opinion in Bell v. Thompson
Additional documents for this case are pending review.