October Term 2002 · Docket 01-9094
Can a state prisoner use a Rule 60(b) motion to seek federal habeas relief?
the side that brought the case argues his motion sought habeas relief. the opposing side disputes this claim.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Zidlicky responded to Justice Stevens' inquiry about the motion's purpose.
He asserted the motion actually did seek federal habeas relief.
Mr. Liebman directed the Court to specific pages in his reply brief.
He cited supporting cases in the footnotes of that section.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Abdur'Rahman v. Bell
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-47
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to recognize his motion sought habeas relief.
the opposing side wants the Court to reject that characterization.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
What each side says
the side that brought the case asserts his Rule 60(b) motion explicitly requested federal habeas relief.
the opposing side argues the motion did not seek that specific relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked whether the motion actually sought federal habeas relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-47
Why it matters
This dispute defines the scope of post-conviction remedies available to state prisoners.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 45-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 5-29 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 5-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 1-43 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 1-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.