Mississippi has failed to show that a reduction in its appellate
staff caused by budgetary cuts constitutes "good cause shown" under
this Court's Rule 13.2, since it has not resulted from events
unforeseen and uncontrollable by both counsel and client. Like any
other litigant, the State must choose between hiring more attorneys
and taking fewer appeals.
Justice SCALIA, Circuit Justice.
In this case, the State of Mississippi has requested a 30-day
extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The State submits that
the extension is required due to "state budgetary cuts," which have
resulted in a reduction in appellate staff.
The law states that the
"time for appeal or application for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of a State court in a criminal case shall be as
prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court."
28 U.S.C. § 2101(d). Those rules provide that
"[a] petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in
any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last
resort . . . shall be deemed in time when it is filed with the
Clerk of this Court within 90 days after the entry of
judgment,"
Rule 13.1. This period may be extended by a Justice of this
Court "for good cause shown" for a period not to exceed 60 days,
Rule 13.2, but an application for such an extension "is not
favored," Rule 13.6.
In my view, counsel's overextended caseload is not "good cause
shown," unless it is the result of events unforeseen and
uncontrollable by both counsel and client. That is not so here.
Like any other litigant, the State of Mississippi must choose
between hiring more attorneys and taking fewer appeals.
Page 498 U. S. 1307
Its budget allocations cannot, and I am sure were not expected
to, alter this Court's filing requirements.
The application is denied.
It is so ordered.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment