Gonzalez v. Crosby

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Christopher M. Kise (argued the cause for Respondent)
Patricia A. Millett (argued the cause for Respondent)
Paul M. Rashkind (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
04-6432
Petitioner: 
Aurelio O. Gonzalez
Respondent: 
James V. Crosby, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Opinion: 
545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_6432)
Facts of the Case: 

In Artuz v. Bennett (2000) the U.S. Supreme Court held that state petitions for postconviction relief could toll the federal statute of limitations even if those petitions were ultimately dismissed as procedurally barred. Gonzalez, whose federal habeas petition had been dismissed as time barred, filed a new petition (a Rule 60[b] petition) in light of the Artuz ruling. The district court denied Gonzalez's new motion. The 11th Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Gonzalez's latest motion amounted to a second or succcessive habeas petition which could not be filed without precertification by the court of appeals.

Question: 

Did Gonzalez's Rule 60(b) motion constitute a second or successive habeas petition?

Conclusion: 

No. In 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Gonzalez's Rule 60(b) motion challenged only the district court's previous ruling on the federal statute of limitations. That motion was therefore not the equivalent of a successive habeas petition and could be ruled on by the district court without the 11th Circuit's precertification.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Crosby, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia