Habeas petition is revived on appeal after district court dismissed case sua sponte

After this criminal defendant was convicted in state court on a gun possession charge, he filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, claiming the gun was the product of an unlawful search. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte, finding that the defendant cannot possibly win the habeas petition. That was wrong, the Court of Appeals says, and the case returns tot the district court for a ruling on the merits.

The case is Ethridge v. Bell, issued on September 20. The police found the gun following a high-speed chase that began when they wanted to stop the driver for using a cell phone while driving. The district court threw out the habeas petition, determining that under Stone v. Powell, a 1976 Supreme Court case, the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to deal with these constitutional issues in state court. Defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration, citing Byrd v. United States, a 2018 Supreme Court case holding that "the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy." The district court sua sponte dismissed that motion as well before the state could even respond to it, finding that the case was still unwindable under the Stone precedent.

The case reaches the Court of Appeals (Lynch, Bianco and Nardini), which finds that the Stone dismissal cannot happen without giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard. That is the general rule in other cases, and now that rule has been applied to habeas cases that may be vulnerable under Stone. Yes, the district court can dismiss the case on its own if it thinks the case is completely meritless. But the party still needs notice of this potential dismissal so it can be heard. One problem with a sua sponte dismissal like this is that the petitioner's arguments that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the constitutional issue in state court may not be apparent from the cold record. Due process says you have to be able to present your arguments fully in federal court.

The state says the motion for reconsideration was the petitioner's opportunity to be heard on this issue, and that would get around the Second Circuit's holding in this case. No, the Court of Appeals says, because such a motion is not an opportunity for a petitioner to relitigate an issue decided or present arguments that could have been made before judgment was entered. Those motions can only prevail in narrow circumstances, such as an intervening change in the law or the availability of new evidence, or the need to prevent a manifest injustice. That is not quite the same as have real opportunity to be heard before the federal judge dismisses the case without notice and an opportunity to be heard.