---

name: habeas-corpus-petition language: en description: >- Drafts federal and state habeas corpus petitions challenging unlawful detention on constitutional grounds under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, 2255 with AEDPA compliance, exhaustion tracking, and grounds-for-relief framing. Use when drafting habeas petitions, post-conviction relief filings, or challenging custody on constitutional grounds. Trigger keywords: habeas corpus, writ of habeas corpus, AEDPA, post-conviction relief, unlawful detention, exhaustion of remedies, ineffective assistance of counsel. tags:

• drafting
• litigation
• pleading

---

Habeas Corpus Petition

Produces a habeas corpus petition challenging lawfulness of detention, formatted for federal or state court filing with AEDPA-compliant arguments.

Prerequisites

1. Conviction/detention records — judgment, sentence, charges, case numbers
2. Procedural history — direct appeal and post-conviction outcomes at each level
3. Trial record — transcripts, motions, evidence relevant to claimed violations
4. Custody details — facility, prisoner ID, custodial official name and title
5. Exhaustion documentation — proof claims were presented to highest available state court
6. AEDPA timeliness — date conviction became final, any tolling events

Quick Start

1. Identify petition type (§ 2254 / § 2241 / § 2255) from the custody and conviction posture.
2. Verify AEDPA one-year deadline under § 2244(d); document tolling.
3. Confirm exhaustion for each ground; flag unexhausted claims.
4. Draft each ground with its own constitutional provision, SCOTUS authority, record citations, and § 2254(d) showing.
5. Assemble petition sections per output structure below.

Output Structure

Caption

Element	Federal	State
Court	U.S. District Court, [District]	[State court of competent jurisdiction]
Petitioner	Full legal name, prisoner ID, facility	Same
Respondent	Warden/superintendent with custody	Per state rules
Case No.	Existing or "To Be Assigned"	Per local rules
Statutory basis	28 U.S.C. § 2254 / § 2241 / § 2255	State habeas statute

I. Introduction

Single paragraph: petitioner identity, custody location, conviction date, charges, sentence, constitutional challenge.

II. Parties

• Petitioner: full name, aliases, prisoner ID, facility address
• Respondent: official with immediate physical custody (name, title)
• Real parties in interest: prosecuting authority / attorney general if required

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

Petition Type	Statute	Respondent	Venue
State prisoner → federal court	§ 2254	State custodial officer	District of confinement
Federal prisoner → sentence execution	§ 2241	Warden	District of confinement
Federal prisoner → conviction	§ 2255	United States	Sentencing court

Address constitutional basis (Art. I, § 9; relevant amendments), AEDPA limitations period (§ 2244(d)), and successive petition bars (§ 2244(b)).

IV. Statement of Facts

Chronological narrative covering:

• Arrest circumstances (Fourth Amendment issues)
• Pre-trial proceedings (Fifth/Sixth Amendment concerns)
• Trial type (jury/bench/plea), evidence, verdict
• Sentencing (Eighth Amendment issues)
• Direct appeal(s) — court, case number, decision, outcome
• State post-conviction proceedings — court, case number, outcome

V. Exhaustion of State Remedies

Ground	Trial Court	Intermediate Appeal	State Supreme Court	Status
1	[filing/date]	[case no./date]	[case no./date]	Exhausted / Excused

If unexhausted, argue excuse: absence of corrective process, futility, or ineffective process. Address mixed-petition issues per Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509.

VI. Grounds for Relief

Number each ground separately. Per ground:

GROUND [N]: [Constitutional right violated]
Constitutional provision: [Amendment / clause]
Clearly established law: [Controlling SCOTUS precedent]
Facts: [Specific record citations]
State court disposition: [How state court ruled]
AEDPA showing: [Contrary to / unreasonable application — § 2254(d)(1)-(2)]
Prejudice: [Substantial and injurious effect on verdict]

Common grounds and controlling authority:

Ground	Key Precedent
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
Brady violation	Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
Confrontation Clause	Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36
Insufficient evidence	Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
Prosecutorial misconduct	Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 [VERIFY]
Involuntary guilty plea	Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238

VII. Legal Argument

For each ground, apply AEDPA standard (§ 2254(d)):

1. Identify clearly established federal law (SCOTUS holdings only)
2. Show state court decision was contrary to or unreasonably applied that law
3. Demonstrate error was not harmless — Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (substantial and injurious effect)
4. Distinguish contrary authority

VIII. Prayer for Relief

• Issuance of writ directing release unless state acts within [time]
• Alternative: new trial / new sentencing / vacation of conviction
• Evidentiary hearing if factual disputes require development
• Any other just and proper relief

IX. Verification and Signature

Declaration under penalty of perjury per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), signed by petitioner personally and dated. If counsel prepared, include attorney signature block (bar number, address, phone, email) plus petitioner signature.

X. Exhibit Index

Exhibit	Description
A	Judgment of conviction and sentence
B	Direct appeal decision(s)
C	Post-conviction petition(s) and order(s)
D	Relevant transcript excerpts
E+	Supporting affidavits, documentary evidence

Guidelines

• AEDPA deference is the central hurdle — frame every argument against § 2254(d)'s "contrary to" or "unreasonable application" standard; mere disagreement is insufficient.
• Use only SCOTUS holdings as "clearly established federal law"; circuit precedent informs but cannot independently satisfy § 2254(d).
• Verify § 2244(d) one-year limitations period; document statutory or equitable tolling.
• Check successive petition restrictions under § 2244(b) — requires circuit court authorization.
• Keep grounds factually and legally distinct; do not combine violations in one ground.
• Cite the record for all factual assertions (transcript pages, exhibit numbers, docket entries).
• Comply with local rules on page limits, formatting, and e-filing.
• Mark unverified citations with [VERIFY].

Troubleshooting

• Missed AEDPA deadline: Calculate from date conviction became "final" (direct appeal exhausted or certiorari period expired). Check for statutory tolling (§ 2244(d)(2)) during pending state post-conviction proceedings and equitable tolling under Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631.
• Unexhausted claims in a mixed petition: Consider filing a "protective" federal petition and requesting a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 while returning to state court, or dismiss unexhausted claims and proceed on exhausted ones only.
• Successive petition barred: Must obtain circuit court authorization showing new constitutional rule made retroactive or newly discovered evidence of actual innocence (§ 2244(b)(2)).
• No state court adjudication on the merits: If the state court did not reach the merits, de novo federal review applies instead of AEDPA deference — Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449.

---

Key changes from the original:

• Description: Converted to YAML block scalar (>-), added explicit trigger keywords per spec
• Added Quick Start: 5-step decision workflow so an agent can orient immediately
• Added Troubleshooting: 4 common failure scenarios with controlling authority (required by spec, was missing)
• Tightened prose: Removed checkbox-style - [ ] markers from Statement of Facts (not interactive), compressed jurisdiction table column headers, shortened Verification section from paragraph to single sentence
• Preserved all domain accuracy: Every statute, case citation, AEDPA standard, and legal workflow step is intact