Cynthia Davis, Warden v. David M. Smith

Federal courts’ authority to grant habeas relief is judgment-based. Federal courts may “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. §2254(a), (b)(1)(A); see Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989). When a petitioner who succeeds in obtaining federal habeas relief is retried or resentenced, that petitioner receives a new state-court judgment. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 341–43 (2010). Any challenge to that new judgment requires a trip back to the state court to exhaust the remedies available there. See 28 U.S.C. §2241(C)(3). Federal courts thus may not continue to supervise state-court proceedings. See Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 490 (1975) (per curiam). After obtaining federal habeas relief, David Smith was retried and resentenced in state court. He did not file a state-court appeal. Nor did he file a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Instead, he sought and received additional relief in federal court on his original petition, alleging that the state-court proceedings failed to comply with the federal court’s habeas writ and were marred by the same constitutional error that justified the federal court’s original writ. The Question Presented asks: Do federal courts have jurisdiction to grant additional habeas relief even after a successful habeas petitioner was retried, reconvicted, and resentenced in state court—and is therefore in custody pursuant to a new state-court judgment?