Courts in every federal district apply Rule 56 to 2255 motions; the application, however, is uneven. In the Second Circuit, the summary-judgment rules do not apply "in their entirety" in habeas proceedings, but in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits the summary-judgment rules apply as in civil cases. Here, a district court in the Fifth Circuit inverted the summary-judgment standard and placed the summary-judgment burden on the nonmovant. Petitioner asks this Court to use this case to define the relationship between Rule 56 and a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

What duties, if any, does an attorney owe his client when counsel is aware the client is acutely mentally ill and that client instructs counsel not to investigate mitigation evidence?

Whether Rule 56 summary-judgment standards apply uniformly to 2255 habeas motions across federal circuits