Davis v. Jacobs Reed v. Ajello

• Citation: 70 L.Ed.2d 226,102 S.Ct. 417,454 U.S. 911
• Decision Date: 13 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-2169,No. 80-6504,80-2169,80-6504
• Parties: William DAVIS v. Thomas L. JACOBS, Commissioner of Probation; and John T. REED v. Carl AJELLO, Attorney General of Connecticut, et al &
• Court: United States Supreme Court

454 U.S. 911

102 S.Ct. 417

70 L.Ed.2d 226

William DAVIS

v Thomas L. JACOBS, Commissioner of Probation; and John T. REED

v. Carl AJELLO, Attorney General of Connecticut, et al

No. 80-2169 & No. 80-6504

Supreme Court of the United States

October 13, 1981

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1981.

See 454 U.S. 1048, 102 S.Ct. 589.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Willie L. DILLARD v. R. J. MARKS, Superintendent, Pennsylvania State Penitentiary, et al.; Allen RODZIEWICZ v. Gary J. HILTON, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, et al.; and James Hugh HENSON, Jr. v. Walter W. REDMAN, Warden. Nos. 80-6586, 80-6818, 81-5071.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Durkin WOODRUFF v. Harry L. ALLSBROOK et al.; and Robert Lee SMITH v. James P. MITCHELL, Warden. Nos. 80-6508, 81-5138.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

William James GIBSON v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden; James FREEMAN v. Joe OLIVER et al.; James Edward CLAYTON v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections; and Burrell JOHNSON, Jr. v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections. Nos. 80-6451, 80-6714, 80-6932, 81-5021.

Page 911-Continued.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Clarence WILLIAMS v. ILLINOIS. No. 81-358.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Orville Gene VINSON v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden; Frank L. PERKINS v. Robert R. RAINES, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison; and Benny DIXON v. Robert RAINES. Nos. 80-6732, 81-5082, 81-5118.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Gary Lee McCOLPIN v. Robert A. ATKINS; and William Thomas HUMPHREY v. OKLAHOMA et al. Nos. 80-6757, 80-6780.

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Opinion of Justice STEVENS respecting the denial of the petitions for writs of certiorari.

The question raised by the dissenting opinion is whether the order to be entered in these 17 cases should be a dismissal or a denial. Although this question might be characterized as a procedural technicality—because its resolution is a matter of complete indifference to the litigants—the argument made in the dissent merits a response because it creates the impression that the Court's answer to this arcane inquiry demonstrates that the Court is discharging its responsibilities in a lawless manner. The impression is quite incorrect.

The petitioners in these cases are state prisoners. None of them has a meritorious claim. Their habeas corpus petitions were all dismissed by Federal District Judges, and they all unsuccessfully sought review in the United States Court of Appeals. Because none of the petitioners obtained a certificate of probable cause, none of these cases was properly "in" the Court of Appeals and therefore 28 U.S.C. § 1254 does not give this Court jurisdiction over the petitions for certiorari. It is perfectly clear, however, that if there were merit to the petitions, the Court would have ample authority to review them in either of two ways.

First, as the Court expressly decided in 1945 in a case that is procedurally identical to these, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. In House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739, the Court conceded that it lacked certiorari jurisdiction under the predecessor to § 1254, but squarely held that the All Writs Act, now 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorized the Court to "grant a writ of certiorari to review the action of the court of appeals in declining to allow an appeal to it" and to review the "questions on the merits sought to be raised by the appeal." 324 U.S., at 44-45, 65 S.Ct., at 519.¹ The Court has consistently followed House v. Mayo for over 35 years.²

Second, as the dissent notes: "[A] Circuit Justice, or this Court itself, may issue a certificate of probable cause. See Rosoto v. Warden, 83 S.Ct. 1788, 11 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963) (Harlan, J., in chambers); In re Hunt, 348 U.S. 968, 75 S.Ct. 536, 99 L.Ed. 754 (1955) (Court denying certificate)." Post, at 918. Because we have that authority, it is part of our responsibility in processing these petitions to determine whether they have arguable merit notwithstanding the failure of a district or circuit judge to authorize an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

A complete explanation of the Court's conclusion that these cases have insufficient merit to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction should therefore include three elements: (1) the petitioner has incorrectly invoked our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 because no certificate of probable cause was issued; (2) the Court has decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651; and (3) neither the Circuit Justice nor the Court has decided to issue a certificate of probable cause. Instead of entering detailed orders of this kind in all of these cases,³ the Court wisely has adopted the practice of entering simple denials.⁴ Ironically, the dissenters argue that this settled practice creates "more paperwork." Post, at 919.

As a practical matter, given the volume of frivolous, illegible, and sometimes unintelligible petitions that are filed in this Court, our work is facilitated by the practice of simply denying certiorari once a determination is made that there is no merit to the petitioner's claim. As the dissenters recognize, that determination must be made in all cases because Circuit Justices have the power—and indeed the duty—to issue certificates of probable cause in proper cases. Imposing on the Court the additional burden of determining in every case whether the form of the order should be a denial or a dismissal is not a trivial matter because in many cases more time would be required in searching the record to be sure that no certificate of probable cause was issued than is required in evaluating a contention that has been unsuccessfully advanced by countless other prisoners.

For these reasons, I believe the Court correctly adheres to the practice it consistently has followed since the decision of House v. Mayo in 1945.⁵

Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice POWELL join, dissenting.

In Jeffries v. Barksdale, 453 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 3149, 69 L.Ed.2d 998 (1981), THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice POWELL, and I dissented from a simple denial of the writ of certiorari, contending that the writ should instead be dismissed because we had no jurisdiction to consider it. Further reflection and research have only strengthened my belief that where a specific statutory enactment dealing with our jurisdiction to consider decisions of the courts of appeals limits that jurisdiction to "[c]ases in the courts of appeals," 28 U.S.C. § 1254, we are bound by that statutory provision just as we would be bound by any other statutory provision, unless we were to hold it violative of some provision of the Constitution.

In each of these cases, the petitioner was convicted in a state court. He then sought habeas corpus relief in a United States District Court, and the District Court dismissed the action or denied the writ and refused to issue a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Section 2253 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides as follows: "An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause" (emphasis supplied).

The effect of this statute, which could not have been drafted in plainer terms, is clear: a certificate of probable cause is an indispensable prerequisite to an appeal from the District Court to the appropriate Court of Appeals. This has long been recognized by the courts, see, e. g., Wilson v. Lanagan, 79 F.2d 702 (CA1 1935); Hooks v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 442 F.2d 1042 (CA5 1971), and by distinguished commentators, see, e. g., Blackmun, Allowance of In Forma Pauperis Appeals in § 2255 and Habeas Corpus Cases, 43 F.R.D. 343, 351 (1967). Our cases are not entirely in harmony as to their reasoning on this issue, though all concede that there is no jurisdiction to grant a writ of certiorari where both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have denied a habeas corpus petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal. See Bilik v. Strassheim, 212 U.S. 551, 29 S.Ct. 684, 53 L.Ed. 649 (1908); Ex parte Patrick, 212 U.S. 555, 29 S.Ct. 686, 53 L.Ed. 650 (1908); House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 44, 65 S.Ct. 517, 519, 89 L.Ed. 739 (1945). In House, however, this Court held that although it could not entertain a petition for certiorari, it had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, currently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to determine the merits of the habeas petition, as well as whether the Court of Appeals had abused its discretion in denying the petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Id., at 44-45, 65 S.Ct., at 519. In reaching this conclusion, it relied on a series of cases interpreting the scope of the common-law writ of certiorari under the All Writs Act. See, e. g., Steffler v. United States, 319 U.S. 38, 63 S.Ct. 948, 87 L.Ed. 488 (1943); Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. 746 (1943); In re 620 Church St. Corp., 299 U.S. 24, 57 S.Ct. 88, 81 L.Ed. 16 (1936).

This reasoning, however, would seem to conflict with the principles established in United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 203, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 1125, 89 L.Ed. 1554 (1945), and its companion case De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, ...