Ukawabutu v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Respondents in habeas corpus cases have long lacked precise and practical instructions regarding the appropriate procedures for responding to a federal habeas corpus petition. Perhaps as a result, respondents frequently file motions to dismiss a habeas petition in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than file an answer. Although there has been considerable confusion in this area of the law, I hold that the proper response to a habeas corpus petition is an answer prepared in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and that a motion to dismiss is appropriate only if, in its discretion, the district court directs or permits the respondents to file such a motion, either before or after the filing of an answer. A motion to dismiss is not an “answer or other pleading.” See Fed.R.Civ.P, 7(a); Willis v. Collins, 989 F.2d 187, 189 (5th Cir.1993). The district court certainly has discretion to order or permit respondents, upon request, to file a motion to dismiss as one of the “other actions” which the court may allow, including the discretion to permit the filing of a motion to dismiss before a respondent files an answer. See Hab. Corp. R. 4 advisory committee’s note; White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.1989). Thus, although “the state has no right, as it would in non-habeas civil litigation, to file a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court now has the discretion to allow such a m”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 320 F. Supp. 2d 902 - Ebert v. Clarke

2. “The practice of filing these 'piecemeal' motions is inconsistent with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(2), which gives district courts the discretion to consider and deny unexhausted claims on their merits, and with fundamental principles of efficient case management.” Gardner, Slip. Op. at (citing Ukawabutu, at 607). 5 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Birkett