Gregory Dean Banister, Petitioner v. Lorie Davis

Summary

Justice Kagan's opinion for the Court held that a timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a federal habeas judgment is part of the initial habeas proceeding, not a second or successive application subject to AEDPA's gatekeeping requirements. Such a motion suspends finality for appellate purposes, so Banister's notice of appeal was timely. The Court distinguished Gonzalez v. Crosby, which addressed Rule 60(b), and reversed and remanded. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that Gonzalez requires courts to classify postjudgment motions by their substance: a motion reasserting merits-based habeas claims is successive regardless of its label and does not toll the appeal deadline.