11 F.4th 518
6th Cir.2021Background
- Raymond Twyford, an Ohio death-row inmate convicted in 1993, filed a federal habeas petition raising numerous claims; he sought CT/FDG‑PET neurological imaging to support several claims (e.g., ineffective assistance, competency, mitigation).
- Twyford submitted a neurologist’s recommendation that OSU perform the imaging; Chillicothe Correctional Institution lacked the equipment.
- The district court, invoking the All Writs Act to aid its habeas jurisdiction, ordered the state warden to transport Twyford to The Ohio State University for the scans.
- The warden appealed interlocutorily, arguing lack of authority under the All Writs Act, conflict with habeas statutes (28 U.S.C. § 2241), limits on habeas discovery, and that Pinholster barred consideration of new evidence.
- The Sixth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral‑order doctrine and affirmed the transport order, concluding the All Writs Act authorized such an order when necessary or appropriate to aid habeas jurisdiction.
- Judge Batchelder dissented: she would apply Harris v. Nelson and require the petitioner to show the scans, if they produced the expected results, could entitle him to habeas relief (and survive Pinholster), which she finds Twyford did not do.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Twyford) | Defendant's Argument (Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory transport order | Order is appealable under collateral‑order doctrine because it conclusively compels state action and is effectively unreviewable later | No interlocutory jurisdiction; should await final judgment | Court: collateral‑order doctrine applies; appealable now |
| Authority to order transport under All Writs Act | District court may issue ancillary orders (including transport) to aid its habeas jurisdiction; §3599 and purpose of counsel support meaningful investigation | All Writs Act cannot be used to compel state to provide investigative access; Baze and statutory scheme limit such orders | Court: All Writs Act may authorize transport to obtain petitioner’s own medical testing in aid of habeas jurisdiction; Baze distinguishable |
| Consistency with habeas statutes and common law (e.g., §2241, traditional habeas) | §2241 limits the writ itself but does not prohibit ancillary orders; transport fills gaps so petitioners can present claims | §2241(c)(5) limits transport to courtroom testimony/trial; writ shouldn’t be broadened | Court: transport order does not conflict with habeas statutes or common‑law habeas role |
| Relevance/admissibility of new testing (Pinholster/Harris/discovery rules) | Imaging plausibly bears on multiple habeas claims; district court need not decide Pinholster admissibility now | Imaging seeks new evidence likely barred by Pinholster; Harris requires showing scans would entitle relief | Court: district court may order transport; admissibility and Pinholster issues to be decided later by district court. Dissent: Harris required a pre‑test showing and would deny |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (recognizes narrow collateral‑order doctrine)
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (collateral‑order elements)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (limits on appealability where only expense/burden arises)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (collateral order on federalism/comity grounds)
- Jones v. Lilly, 37 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. case recognizing appealability of transport orders)
- Jackson v. Vasquez, 1 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. case on transport order appealability)
- Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. case on transport orders)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (All Writs Act not an independent jurisdictional source)
- Penn. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (All Writs Act fills gaps to protect federal jurisdiction)
- United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (look to common law when applying All Writs Act)
- United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (All Writs Act must be consistent with congressional intent)
- United States v. Perry, 360 F.3d 519 (standard of review for All Writs Act exercise)
- Baze v. Parker, 632 F.3d 338 (6th Cir.) (limits on court‑ordered investigatory compulsion; distinguished here)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on admitting evidence not presented to state courts)
- Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (role of habeas at common law)
- Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (All Writs Act may permit fact‑development where petitioner shows evidence could entitle relief)
- Ivey v. Harney, 47 F.3d 181 (7th Cir. view that §2241(c)(5) precludes non‑court transport orders)