Inside the Supreme Court

Petition to Decision

Papers of Supreme Court Justices on Civil Rights Cases

David Achtenberg

Professor & Law Foundation Scholar

UMKC School of Law

Kansas City, MO 64110-2499

816-235-2382

AchtenbergD@umkc.edu

Allen Home
 
Timeline
Part 1
 
Timeline
Part 2
 
Timeline
Part 3
 
Timeline
Part 4
 
Abbreviations
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allen v. McCurry

Timeline

 

 Part 1
Deciding to Grant Review
First Filings to Grant of Certiorari
Part 2
Briefing, Argument & Decision on the Merits
Grant of Certiorari to First Conference
Part 3
Drafting the Opinions
F
irst Drafts to Final Decisions
Part 4
After the Decision
Petition for Rehearing and Post Decision Events

 

          Coverage:  This page is a chronological timeline of the Court’s internal discussion and handling of Allen from the petitioner's earliest filings through the announcement of the decision in the case.  The timeline is divided into four sections which can be accessed through the buttons above or the ones in the yellow navigation area.

 

         Accessing Documents:  Each event is linked to all the documents in the Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and Powell files (as well as some documents from additional sources) that relate to that event.  To access a document, click on its link.  In the illustration below, you would click the link indicated by the red arrow to access the copy of Justice Powell's Opinion log that was found in his files.  (The links do not work on this illustration which is not from the Allen files.  To experiment, go to the timeline itself.) 

 

   

       

          Duplicate Documents:  When more than one copy of a document was found, I have included and linked all copies.  When a particular justice’s copy of a document contains additional annotations or markings, the link to that copy ends with an asterisk.   In the illustration above, the asterisks at the end of the circled entries indicate that both Justice Marshall and Justice Powell (or their clerks) made notes on their respective copies of the first draft of Justice Brennan's majority opinion.

        

          Abbreviations:  I have abbreviated the names of the justices, their clerks, and a few other persons.  A key to all abbreviations can be accessed by clicking the abbreviations button in the yellow navigation area. 

 

          Dates:  If the date of an event is unclear, estimated or derived, the date is underlined and the date is linked to an explanation. 

 

          Higher Resolution Copies:  Most of the documents are presented in comparatively small pdf files which should be adequate for most uses.  Please let me know if you think that any particular image needs to be replaced with a higher resolution version.  I will also be happy to send higher resolution copies (or original JPEGs) of any images to anyone who needs them.  For further information about how the documents were photographed, edited and converted to pdf files, click here to go to the Image Creation and Conversion Protocol Page

 

          Sources and Citation:  For an explanation of how to determine the original archive location of any document, click here to go to the Document Source Page.

 

 

Allen Timeline—Part 1
Deciding to Grant Review: First Filings to Grant of Certiorari (12/14/79 -02/19/80 )
    Documents
Event Date HAB WJB TM LFP PS BRW Other
Petition for Certiorari filed 12/14/79             Docket
Petition
Respondent moves leave to proceed in forma pauperis 01/09/80             Docket
Motion
Brief in Opposition filed 01/09/80             Docket
BIO
Petition for certiorari distributed to chambers for consideration at February 15, 1980 cert conference 01/16/80             Docket
PLS (WEB Clerk) circulates memo to pool suggesting that the court grant cert but raising possibility of case being mooted.  01/21/80 Memo PLS to Pool*     Memo PLS to Pool*      
JBS (LFP Clerk) writes memo to LFP suggesting voting to grant cert. 01/25/80       Memo JBS to LFP*      
  PDH (HAB Clerk) annotates pool memo arguing that the Court of Appeals was correct but that the court may still want to grant to resolve the issue.  01/25/80 Memo PLS to Pool*              
  SBG (PS Clerk) writes cert memo to PS recommending  granting cert and suggesting that collateral estoppel might not be appropriate in 1983 cases unless the party to be estopped has had an opportunity to litigate issue in federal court. 01/25/80         Memo SPG to PS      
  SPG adds additional paragraph to  cert memo pointing out that state supreme court has not resolved issue on direct appeal, and that its decision might moot the case.  01/28/80         Memo SPG to PS      
  HAB reviews and further annotates pool memo. 01/29/80 Memo PLS to Pool*              
LFP reviews JBS memo and annotates it and the pool memo. LFP indicates probable vote to grant.  02/10/80       Memo PLS to Pool
Memo JBS to LFP
     
Case discussed in certiorari conference.   WJB, BRW, HAB, LFP, & WHR vote to grant.  TM & JPS vote to deny.  WEB joins 3.  PS would hold the case for the state case which could moot the issue.  02/15/80 HAB Docket WJB Docket   LFP Docket  PS Docket  BRW Docket  
In certiorari conference, BRW expresses view that court of appeals was trying to do an end run around Stone v. Powell and that the case raises an important issue.  WHR says that court of appeals was simply wrong.  02/15/80       LFP Docket      
Order issued granting respondent leave to proceed in forma pauperis and granting petition for certiorari.  02/19/80             Docket
                     
Allen Timeline—Part 2
Briefing, Argument & Decision on the Merits (02/21/80 - 10/14/80)
    Documents
Event Date HAB WJB TM LFP PS BRW Other
  Franklin Ferris (St. Louis County Circuit Judge) writes letter to WEB (copies to each justice) with attached newspaper clipping.  He expresses the view that the case load of federal courts could be decreased by giving collateral estoppel effect to state court judgments in 1983 cases and urges adoption of that position.   02/21/80  Letter F Ferris to WEB              
Court extends time for filing the appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits until April 14, 1980. 03/13/80              Docket
Petitioner files motion to dispense with printing the appendix 03/13/80              Docket
Motion to dispense with printing appendix circulated to court for consideration at conference on April 11, 1980 03/19/80              Docket
Senior Legal Counsel RSM writes memo to conference describing status of motion to dispense with printing the appendix and describing motion as "appropriate." 03/31/80 Memo RSM to Conf     Memo RSM to Conf      
  Americans for Effective Law Enforcement et al file amicus brief supporting petitioner. 04/04/80             Docket
AELE Brief
 
  Court extends time for filing the appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits to May 5, 1980. 04/04/80             Docket  
MR (HAB Clerk) annotates RSM memo and recommends granting motion to dispense with printing appendix. 04/07/80 Memo RSM to Conf            
JS (LFP Clerk) annotates RSM memo and recommends granting motion to dispense with printing appendix. 04/07/80       Memo RSM to Conf      
LFP annotates RSM memo indicating he will vote to grant. 04/11/80       Memo RSM to Conf      
Court votes on motion to dispense with printing appendix and grants motion (But see LFP's docket which appears to indicate the vote was unanimous to deny.)  04/11/80       LFP Docket re Motion      Docket
Court issues order granting motion to dispense with printing appendix. 04/14/80              Docket
Court Order
Petitioner files brief on the merits 05/02/80             Docket
Petitioner Brief
Court extends time for filing of respondent's brief on the merits to July 5, 1980 05/23/80             Docket 
Respondent files brief on the merits 06/30/80             Docket
Respondent Brief
Motion to permit Andrew Purzer to argue pro hac vice for respondent filed 07/03/80             Docket 
ACLU of Eastern Missouri files amicus brief supporting respondent 07/07/80             Docket
ACLU Brief
GPM (BRW Clerk) writes memo to BRW recommending applying collateral estoppel and reversing. 07/16/80           Memo GPM to BRW  
Briefs circulated to chambers 08/12/80              Docket
PWC (LFP clerk) writes memo to LFP recommending applying collateral estoppel and reversing. 08/12/80 Memo PWC to LFP  
  Motion to permit Andrew Purzer to argue pro hac vice for respondent withdrawn. 09/10/80             Docket  
SGL (HAB clerk) writes memo to HAB arguing against collateral estoppel effect in this situation and recommends affirming. 09/11/80 Memo SGL to HAB            
SGL submits proposed questions for oral argument to HAB. 09/11/80 Memo SGL to HAB            
LFP reviews and extensively annotates PWC's 8/12 memo. 09/17/80       Memo PWC to LFP      
HAB prepares notes for oral argument including a table of arguments for and against applying collateral estoppel in the case.  (These notes may have annotations made during oral argument. See 10/08/80.) 09/17/80 Pre-Argument Notes            
HAB prepares additional questions for oral argument.  (These questions may have annotations made during oral argument.  See 10/08/80.) 09/17/80 HAB Questions for Oral Argument            
Petitioner files Reply Brief 09/26/80  Docket
Reply Brief
AO (TM Clerk) writes memo to TM arguing against collateral estoppel effect in this situation and recommends voting to affirming. AO doubts that the position will muster a majority.  10/06/80     Memo AO to TM        
Case argued.  10/08/80 HAB Oral Argument Notes
HAB Questions for Oral Argument
Pre-Argument Notes
    LFP Oral Argument Notes     Docket
Oral Argument Audio & Transcript
  PWC writes memo to LFP re arguments to be made at conference in favor of applying collateral estoppel 10/09/80       Memo PWC to LFP(1)        
  PWC writes additional memo to LFP re whether applying collateral estoppel would be inconsistent with Stone v. Powell 10/09/80       Memo PWC to LFP (2)        
LFP prepares notes for upcoming conference 10/09/80       LFP Pre-Conference Notes      
Court discusses case in conference and votes 6-3 to reverse,  WJB, TM, and HAB dissenting 10/10/80 HAB Conference Notes
HAB Docket
WJB Conference Notes
WJB Docket
  LFP Conference Notes PS Conference Notes    
WEB assigns opinion to PS 10/11/80 HAB Circ Record     LFP Tracking Sheet WEB Assignment Memo
PS Assignment List
PS Tracking Sheet
   
WJB writes HAB asking if he will write dissent 10/14/80 Memo WJB to HAB   Memo WJB to HAB   Memo WJB to HAB    
HAB writes WJB agreeing to write dissent. 10/14/80 Memo HAB to WJB   Memo HAB to WJB        
Allen Timeline—Part 3
Drafting the Opinions: From First Drafts to Final Opinions (11/04/80 - 12/09/80)
    Documents
Event Date HAB WJB TM LFP PS BRW Other
PS circulates first draft of opinion. 11/04/80   PS 1st Draft PS 1st Draft   PS 1st Draft PS 1st Draft  
HAB writes PS that he will be writing dissent. 11/04/80 Memo HAB to PS Memo HAB to PS Memo HAB to PS Memo HAB to PS Memo HAB to PS Memo HAB to PS  
PWC writes memo to LFP suggesting joining PS opinion. However, PWC expresses concern about note 24 and suggests the opinion could be strengthened by explicitly relying on 28 USC 1738 and stating that state preclusion law should apply. 11/04/80       Memo PWC to LFP      
LFP suggests to PWC that he revise PS opinion in accordance with PWC's memo. 11/05/80       Memo PWC to LFP      
PWC writes LFP suggesting that revising PS's opinion would involve substantial redrafting and that he is not sure it is "worth making a fuss about." 11/05/80       Memo PWC to LFP      
BRW writes PS that he will join the opinion. 11/06/80 Memo BRW to PS Memo BRW to PS Memo BRW to PS Memo BRW to PS Memo BRW to PS Memo BRW to PS  
JPS writes PS that he will join the opinion. 11/06/80 Memo JPS to PS Memo JPS to PS Memo JPS to PS Memo JPS to PS Memo JPS to PS Memo JPS to PS  
WHR writes PS that he will join the opinion. 11/06/80 Memo WHR to PS Memo WHR to PS Memo WHR to PS Memo WHR to PS Memo WHR to PS Memo WHR to PS  
TM writes PS that he awaits the dissent. 11/06/80 Memo TM to PS Memo TM to PS Memo TM to PS Memo TM to PS Memo TM to PS Memo TM to PS  
PS circulates second draft of opinion with revised note 24. 11/06/80 PS 2d Draft* PS 2d Draft PS 2d Draft   PS 2d Draft (1)
PS 2d Draft (2)
PS 2d Draft  
Case is listed as a circulating opinion for discussion in the conference on November 7 11/07/80         Circulating Opinion Memo    
LFP writes PS that he will join the opinion. 11/17/80 Memo LFP to PS Memo LFP to PS Memo LFP to PS Memo LFP to PS* Memo LFP to PS Memo LFP to PS  
HCL writes PS about syllabus. 11/18/80 Memo HCL to PS  
PS responds to PS about changes in syllabus 11/19/80         Memo PS to HCL    
WEB writes PS that he will join the opinion. 11/21/80 Memo WEB to PS Memo WEB to PS Memo WEB to PS Memo WEB to PS Memo WEB to PS Memo WEB to PS  
HAB circulates first draft of dissent 11/21/80 HAB 1st Draft   HAB 1st Draft   HAB 1st Draft HAB 1st Draft  
PS circulates third draft of opinion.  Draft responds to dissent with additions to footnotes 5 and 7 and a new footnote 17. 11/25/80     PS 3rd Draft   PS 3rd Draft PS 3rd Draft  
SGL writes memo to HAB commenting on PS third draft and suggests that changes will not necessitate changes in HAB's dissent.  11/26/80 Memo SGL to HAB  
WJB writes HAB that he will join the dissent 11/26/80 Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB  
HAB writes WJB re PS third draft's changes in response to dissent, suggesting that PS has narrowed the opinion and that the dissent can stand as is.  HAB notes that "SGL OKs" this memo. 11/28/80 Memo HAB to WJB            
  WJB writes HAB indicating that he agrees that PS's third draft does not require changes in the dissent.  12/01/80 Memo WJB to HAB Memo WJB to HAB            
HAB circulates second draft of dissent (only non-stylistic change is addition of WJB as joining) 12/01/80 HAB 2nd Draft HAB 2nd Draft HAB 2nd Draft*   HAB 2nd Draft HAB 2nd Draft  
TM writes HAB that he will join the dissent 12/01/80 Memo TM to HAB Memo TM to HAB Memo TM to HAB Memo TM to HAB Memo TM to HAB Memo TM to HAB  
HAB notes on his copy of the second draft dissent that TM has joined the dissent 12/01/80 Memo TM to HAB            
PS circulates fourth draft of opinion making only minor changes.  12/03/80   PS 4th Draft PS 4th Draft   PS 4th Draft PS 4th Draft  
  WEB circulates memo to conference indicating that five cases, including Allen, will be announced on December 9. 12/05/80         Memo WEB to Conf      
PS marks copy of fourth draft to use for oral announcement of opinion. 12/08/80 PS Announcement Copy  
Opinion Announced. 12/09/80         Memo WEB to Conf   Docket
Announcement
Allen Timeline—Part 4
After the Decision: Post-Decision Events  (12/11/80 - 02/03/81)
    Documents
Event Date HAB WJB TM LFP PS BRW Other
PS circulates memo to conference regarding cases held for Allen.  12/11/80 Memo PS to Conf        Memo PS to Conf  Memo PS to Conf  
Walter Miale writes letter to HAB praising his dissent 12/20/80  Letter W Miale to HAB          
HAB responds to W. Miale's letter 01/07/81  Letter HAB to W. Miale            
  Judgment issued 01/08/81             Docket  
HCL writes HAB re proposed editorial changes in dissent. 01/13/81  Memo HCL to HAB            
HCL writes PS re proposed editorial changes in opinion. 01/13/81          Memo HCL to PS    
PS responds to HCL about proposed editorial changes. 02/03/81         Memo PS to HCL    

 

 

 
Notes to Timeline Dates
Date Explanation
01/21/80 Document misdated 1/21/1979.
01/25/80 Date estimated based on date of PLS pool memo and other cert memos, as well as date of cert conference. 
01/28/80 Date paragraph was added to SBG's memo is is estimated based on the estimated 1/25/80 date of memo itself
01/29/80 Date estimated based on dates of PDH's annotations and cert conference.
02/10/80 Date estimated based on dates of JBS memo and cert conference. 
04/07/80 Date estimated based on date of MR's annotations to RSM memo.
04/11/80 Date estimated based on date of conference
10/06/80 Document date does not include the year
12/08/80 Date estimated based on date of announcement.  The document is titled by hand, "PS Announcement Copy, Tuesday, December 9, 1980," but it seems likely it was prepared before that date.