What is the question presented in Banister v. Davis?

1. WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A TIMELY RULE 59 (e) MOTION SHOULD BE RECHARACTERIZED AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION UNDER GONZALEZ v. CROSBY, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)? 2. In Gonzalez V. Crosby this Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion that either adds new habeas claim or attacks the court's previous resolution of the habeas claims, should be treated as a successive habeas petition under AEDPA's §2244. Does Gonzalez extend to post-judgment motions filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 3. If so, should a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion toll the the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)? 4. Whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has been recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal?

What is Banister v. Davis about?

This case asked whether, after a federal court denies a state prisoner’s habeas petition, the prisoner’s timely Rule 59(e) motion asking the court to reconsider its judgment should be treated as part of the same case or as a barred second habeas petition. That classification also determines whether the motion pauses the deadline for filing an appeal.

No. 18-6943October Term 2019Decided Jun 1, 2020

Docket 18-6943October Term 2019 (2019–2020)

Banister v. Davis

A timely Rule 59(e) motion in a habeas case is treated as part of the same case, which matters for whether the appeal clock stops.

Case status

Current stage: Decided
Latest event: Decision released Jun 1, 2020

Case Accepted

Arguments

Decision ReleasedJun 1, 2020

What it's about: This case asked whether, after a federal court denies a state prisoner’s habeas petition, the prisoner’s timely Rule 59(e) motion asking the court to reconsider its judgment should be treated as part of the same case or as a barred second habeas petition. That classification also determines whether the motion pauses the deadline for filing an appeal.
Question presented
1. WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A TIMELY RULE 59 (e) MOTION SHOULD BE RECHARACTERIZED AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION UNDER GONZALEZ v. CROSBY, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)? 2. In Gonzalez V. Crosby this Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion that either adds new habeas claim or attacks the court's previous resolution of the habeas claims, should be treated as a successive habeas petition under AEDPA's §2244. Does Gonzalez extend to post-judgment motions filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 3. If so, should a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion toll the the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)? 4. Whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has been recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal?
Case path: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit / Decision released Jun 1, 2020
Area: Criminal Procedure

Briefing

What it's about

The Supreme Court said a state prisoner's timely Rule 59(e) motion asking a federal judge to reconsider a denied habeas petition is generally part of the same case, not a second habeas petition. That also means the motion can pause the deadline for filing an appeal.

Vote

The case was argued on Dec. 4, 2019, and decided on June 1, 2020, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

Impact

This affects prisoners and courts deciding whether a quick request to fix a judgment counts as the same case or a barred repeat filing. For example, a prisoner who promptly asks a district court to correct an error may still keep time to appeal.

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished this case. Lower courts must apply this rule when handling Rule 59(e) motions in habeas cases and related appeal deadlines.

What was the main dispute in Banister v. Davis?

The case asked whether a timely Rule 59(e) motion after a habeas loss is part of the same case or a second petition. That choice also affects the appeal deadline.

Why does the decision matter in real life?

It affects whether prisoners can ask a judge to promptly fix a possible mistake without being treated as filing a barred repeat petition. It also affects when they must file an appeal.

What happens next after the Supreme Court's decision?

The Court's work on this case is done. Lower courts now use this decision when similar Rule 59(e) disputes come up in habeas cases.

Decision

Decision recordJun 1, 2020

What the Court decided

A timely Rule 59(e) motion in a habeas case is treated as part of the same case, which matters for whether the appeal clock stops.

Impact

This affects prisoners and courts deciding whether a quick request to fix a judgment counts as the same case or a barred repeat filing. For example, a prisoner who promptly asks a district court to correct an error may still keep time to appeal.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents

opinion

Documents

Opinions

opinion

Key filings

Questions Presented

Petition

View full docket on supremecourt.gov

Grounding

Grounding: Primary materials plus reporting.
Note: Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked: Jul 2, 2026
Method: Methodology

Primary materials10

Context reporting3