Banister v. Davis

Gregory Dean Banister, a Texas prisoner serving a 30-year sentence for aggravated assault, filed a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After the district court denied relief, Banister timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the court also denied. He then appealed, but the Fifth Circuit construed the Rule 59(e) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition and dismissed the appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether a Rule 59(e) motion in habeas proceedings constitutes a second or successive application under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b).

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in a 7-2 decision. Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, held that a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court's judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under §2244(b); rather, it is "part and parcel of the first habeas proceeding." Because the motion was timely filed under Rule 59(e), it suspended the finality of the original judgment, making Banister's appeal timely. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that Gonzalez v. Crosby should apply equally to Rule 59(e) motions that challenge the merits of a habeas claim.

Whether a motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a federal habeas court's judgment qualifies as a "second or successive" habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b), and therefore must satisfy AEDPA's stringent gatekeeping requirements.

The decision preserves Rule 59(e) as a meaningful procedural tool for habeas petitioners, ensuring they can seek reconsideration of a district court's judgment without being procedurally barred as filing a successive petition. It resolves a circuit split and promotes uniform application of AEDPA's gatekeeping provisions. The ruling also advances judicial efficiency by allowing district courts to correct errors within the narrow 28-day window, potentially avoiding unnecessary appeals, while confirming that habeas petitioners retain one full opportunity for federal review.