Ford v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Ninth Circuit held that if a pro se prisoner files a mixed petition, the district court must give two specific warnings regarding the stay-and-abeyance procedure: first, that "it would not have the power to consider [a prisoner's] motions to stay the [mixed] petitions unless he opted to amend them and dismiss the then-unexhausted claims,” and, second, if applicable, "that [a prisoner's] federal claims would be time-barred, absent cause for equitable tolling, upon his return to federal court if he opted to dismiss the petitions 'without prejudice' and return to state court to exhaust all of his claims.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ford v. Pliler · Sossa v. Diaz

2. “[A] pro se habeas petitioner who files a mixed petition that is improperly dismissed by the district court, and who then (following the district court's erroneous legal statements) returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims and subsequently refiles a second petition without unreasonable delay, may employ the amendment procedures of [Rule 15(c)] to have the second petition relate back to and preserve the filing date of the improperly-dismissed initial petition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pliler Warden v. Ford · Brambles v. Duncan

3. “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Brambles v. Duncan · Sergey Spitsyn v. Robert Moore, Warden