2005 Supreme Court term

MIKE EVANS, ACTING WARDEN v. REGINALD CHAVIS.

Dockets 04-721Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The case was presented for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States.

After oral argument, the case was submitted to the Court at 12:03 p.m.

Background and question before the Court

According to Mr. Stris, petitioner contends that the rule creates a conclusive presumption that a petition filed within 90 days is timely, shifting the burden to the prisoner to produce evidence.

According to Ms. Chatman, petitioner notes that the capital‑case presumption has been changed from 90 days to 180 days, affecting the timeliness of habeas petitions.

According to Ms. Chatman, petitioner argues that summary orders from state courts say nothing about timeliness, citing the Ylst decision.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Mike Evans) Position

According to Mr. Stris, the rule creates a conclusive presumption that a petition filed within 90 days is timely, shifting the burden to the prisoner to produce evidence.

According to Ms. Chatman, the capital‑case presumption has been changed from 90 days to 180 days, affecting the timeliness of habeas petitions.

According to Ms. Chatman, summary orders from state courts say nothing about timeliness, as explained in the Ylst decision.

Respondent (Reginald Chavis) Position

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Oral argument began at 11:03 a.m.

Justice Scalia asked a question during the argument.

Justice Breyer later asked another question about the theory.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Justice Scalia warned that requiring federal courts to review such cases could force them to decide within 60‑80 days, and a mistaken finding of untimeliness could deprive a prisoner of a first federal habeas petition, which Congress did not intend.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 3e42749b611d967ba9a7-r1-6b04c4f137986662.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.