Case Citator › Cullen v. Pinholster

Cullen v. Pinholster

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
563 U.S. 170
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
227 of 227
Citing cases (total)
5,994
Treatment dates
2023
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Cullen v. Pinholster remains partly limited in this review: all 227 flagged citations have been read, and one court took adverse action against the decision. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee limited Pinholster's record restriction to review under § 2254(d)(1) and declined to apply it during Rule 6 discovery.
More on how this was screened

The other citing opinions applied Pinholster's rules, described its effect on older authority, or contained party arguments and separate views. The confirmed adverse treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,994 later cases cite Cullen v. Pinholster; 227 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cullen v. Pinholster?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court limited Pinholster's state-court-record restriction to § 2254(d)(1) review and declined to apply it to discovery under Rule 6.

    Niceley v. Tennessee Department of Correction · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · filed

    The Court is not persuaded by this argument. The Supreme Court held in Pinholster “that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” 563 U.S. at 181. However, “Pinholster did not, strictly speaking, alter or even speak to the standards governing discovery set forth in Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Bracy v. Gramley[.|” Conway v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-947, 2011 WL 2119373, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 26, 2011); see also Pike v. Johnson, No. 1:12-cv-35, 2013 WL 2457718, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. June 6, 2013) (“While Cullen v. Pinholster limits the scope of review under § 2254(d)(1), it says nothing about the court’s discretion to allow discovery.”). “There is no clear guidance from either the Supreme Court or the Sixth Circuit regarding how Pinholster applies to the availability of discovery in federal habeas proceedings.” Williams v. Houk, No. 4:06 CV 451, 2012 WL 6607008, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2012). “That is reason enough to refrain from invoking Pinholster’s restrictions at the discovery phase.” Conway, 2011 WL 2119373, at *3.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cullen v. Pinholster and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace