All right. Welcome to the many readers generated by the link to Radley Balko’s Agitator.
Since I am no longer in a position to be sending motions down to the Supreme Court of the United States, having no office and being a refugee in Canada, I am eternally grateful for the participation in this ongoing saga of Norm Pattis, who has agreed to co-counsel with me on a long shot, last ditch application for the Supreme Court to re-consider the habeas corpus petition I filed there last year. It is viable to ask for federal habeas corpus relief so long as Sephora is “in custody”. In federal practice parole – or post release supervision – counts as being in custody; and Sephora, who is on post release supervision, is therefore in custody. Until March of 2012.
Moving on then.
Like everything with the SCOTUS it’s very complicated. First question is, can a motion even be brought at this point?
Maybe, maybe not. I hope so.
It’s not so much the outrage; it’s the issue presented, which is an outrage in and of itself. The SCOTUS is the only court that can fix it. Do they want to? Dunno.
The Petition was an “original” petition for habeas corpus, brought in the SCOTUS directly, and not on appeal from another court. According to the Court’s rule 20.4, such petitions are “rarely granted” – this coming from a court that rarely grants anything.
And of course it’s an understatement. The last time the SCOTUS granted one was 1925.
Under the Supreme Court’s rule 17.2:
“The form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is followed.”
Under F.R.Civ.P 60(b)(6), you can ask a court to reconsider a previous order or orders. Such as the orders denying the petition and the petition for rehearing last year.
But there’s a problem. Rule 17.1 says that:
“This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction…”
One would think that an “original” habeas corpus petition would invoke the Court’s “original” jurisdiction, but one would be wrong. A habeas corpus petition originally brought in the SCOTUS is nevertheless entertained under the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
So we have to try to tackle that problem first, and this is how we’re trying to do that:
Then, there is the proposed motion itself. Next post.