⚖ SoapBox law
ConstitutionTreatiesCasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsPrivacy lawAppeals & writsYour rightsDoctrinesSpirit of the LawsCase law as historyMaximsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Appeals & extraordinary writs · a pro-se ladder

If you lost and want to keep fighting, there is an order you have to climb — trial loss → appeal → reconsideration → state post-conviction → discretionary review → the Supreme Court → federal habeas → the extraordinary writs (mandamus and its cousins). Take them out of order and you can permanently burn a later option. Pick your jurisdiction, then walk the ladder. This is legal information and a fill-in-the-blank tool — not legal advice.

1 · Your jurisdiction

State, DC, or federal — and the court level. This drives which deadlines and rules apply.

The exhaustion ladder — climb it in order

✓ a step you have marked done · ⚠ a gated step whose earlier rungs are not marked done · steps are numbered in the order you must climb them.

1 Direct appeal
The direct appeal is the ordinary, first-as-of-right challenge to a final judgment. You ask a higher court to review the trial record for legal error — you generally do NOT get to add new evidence. It is the base of the ladder: almost everything above it assumes you took, or gave up, this step first.
Open this step →
2 Motion for reconsideration / new trial
A motion asking the SAME court that ruled to reconsider — for legal error, or a new trial (in a criminal case, often on newly discovered evidence). It is filed back in the trial court, not up the ladder.
Open this step →
3 State post-conviction / state habeas ⚠
A separate (collateral) proceeding in state court to raise things a direct appeal could not — most often ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or a constitutional violation that lives outside the trial record. Every state has its own vehicle (post-conviction relief, a state habeas petition, a "coram nobis"-style motion, etc.).
Open this step →
4 Discretionary review (state supreme court) ⚠
After an intermediate appellate court rules, you ask the state’s highest court to review it. In most states this is DISCRETIONARY — the court chooses whether to take the case (a petition for review / petition for discretionary review), it is not an appeal of right.
Open this step →
5 Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court ✓
A petition for a writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a final judgment of a state court of last resort (on a federal question) or a U.S. Court of Appeals. It is almost entirely discretionary — the Court grants a tiny fraction of petitions.
Open this step →
6 Federal habeas corpus (§ 2254 / § 2255) exhaust first⚠
A collateral attack in FEDERAL court on a conviction or sentence that violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. State prisoners use 28 U.S.C. § 2254; federal prisoners use a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. It is not a second appeal — the review is narrow and deferential to the state courts.
Open this step →
7 Writ of mandamus (§ 1361 / All Writs Act / state) last resort✓
An extraordinary writ ordering a government officer, court, or agency to perform a clear, non-discretionary DUTY it is refusing to do (or, in aid of jurisdiction, to stop exceeding its authority). In federal district court it rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1361; appellate mandamus rests on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. To compel a federal AGENCY specifically, the everyday vehicle is the APA: 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) lets a court "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."
Open this step →
8 Writ of coram nobis ⚠
An ancient writ to correct a fundamental error in a case where the sentence has already been served, so habeas (which requires being "in custody") is unavailable — for example, to clear a conviction still causing collateral consequences. In federal court it is recognized under the All Writs Act: United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954).
Open this step →
8 Writ of prohibition ⚠
Mandamus’s mirror image: instead of ordering a lower court/official to ACT, prohibition orders it to STOP — to refrain from exceeding its jurisdiction or authority. Like mandamus it is an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act (or a state equivalent).
Open this step →
8 Writ of quo warranto
A special writ challenging a person’s RIGHT to hold a public office or exercise a public franchise — "by what authority?" It is usually brought by a government attorney (an Attorney General or, federally, the U.S. Attorney), not a private individual, and it stands apart from the appeal/habeas ladder rather than on top of it.
Open this step →

✓ You have marked this step done. Undo

Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court

This step usually comes after earlier rungs

You have not marked these earlier steps complete: Direct appeal. This remedy is normally available only after them. Confirm you have exhausted the lower rungs (or that an exception applies) before relying on this one.

What this is

A petition for a writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a final judgment of a state court of last resort (on a federal question) or a U.S. Court of Appeals. It is almost entirely discretionary — the Court grants a tiny fraction of petitions.

Where it sits in the ladder

This is the top of the DIRECT-review ladder. It is not required before federal habeas, but it is the last chance for direct Supreme Court review of your judgment.

What "burning" this option means

The 90-day deadline (Sup. Ct. R. 13) runs from the state high court’s final judgment or denial of rehearing. It is jurisdictional in effect — miss it and certiorari is gone.

Who the respondents are

On appeal the other side (the appellee/respondent) is whoever won below — in a criminal case, "the People"/"the State"/"the United States," represented by the prosecutor or your state Attorney General. Serve every party per the certificate of service.

Deadlines that can end the option

Certiorari 90 days from entry of the judgment (or denial of rehearing) by the state court of last resort or the U.S. Court of Appeals. Sup. Ct. R. 13

Generate: Petition (review / post-conviction / writ) — required fields

This is a fill-in-the-blank scaffold of the sections your document needs. It is AI-generated structure, not a completed filing and not legal advice — fill each field with your own case’s facts, or take it to an attorney or your court’s self-help center.

Court
The full name of the court you are filing in (e.g. "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit").
Parties
Who is who on appeal — Appellant/Petitioner vs. Appellee/Respondent (name the party bringing the challenge first).
Case / docket number
The lower court’s case number, and the new appellate number once assigned.
Caption
The formatted heading block: court, parties, case number, and the title of the document.
Title of the petition
e.g. "Petition for Review", "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief", "Petition for Writ of Certiorari".
Questions presented
The precise questions you ask the higher court to decide.
Statement of the case & decisions below
The procedural history and the rulings you are challenging.
Statement of facts
The material facts, with record citations.
Reasons to grant review / grounds for relief
Why this court should take the case (conflict, importance) or why relief is warranted.
Relief requested
What you want — review granted, conviction vacated, new trial, resentencing.
Appendix
The lower-court opinions/orders and any required record excerpts.
Certificate of compliance
A signed statement that the brief meets the length/format limits (word or page count, font).
Certificate of service
A signed statement of the date and manner you served every other party with a copy.

Format & length rules

  • U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petition: booklet format, 9,000-word limit, 40-day/90-day timing Sup. Ct. R. 14, 33; deadline Sup. Ct. R. 13
  • State petition-for-review and post-conviction forms/limits VARY — many states publish a required form; check your state’s rules — varies by state; confirm in your state’s rules

Governing statutes

Certiorari deadline (90 days) Sup. Ct. R. 13
A court rule or state statute — read it in the governing rulebook (your court's Rules of Appellate/Civil/Criminal Procedure or your state code).
Certiorari jurisdiction over state judgments 28 U.S.C. § 1257
look it up on SoapBox → · official (OLRC) → · Cornell LII →
Certiorari from the federal courts of appeals 28 U.S.C. § 1254
look it up on SoapBox → · official (OLRC) → · Cornell LII →

Cases on point (live · CourtListener)

Amerson v. U.S. Bankr. Court for the Dist. of Colo.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2019-11-18 · Published · cited 0× · 140 S. Ct. 531; 205 L. Ed. 2d 349
Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Combs v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Ky.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 305; 199 L. Ed. 2d 189
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Rudzavice v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Tex.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-02-21 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 1136; 197 L. Ed. 2d 235; 85 U.S.L.W. 3392; 2017 WL 670653; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 949
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Akel v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Fla.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2016-10-03 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 285; 196 L. Ed. 2d 200
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Alfriend v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2016-11-07 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 459; 196 L. Ed. 2d 336
Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Flood v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Pa.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2015-10-05 · Published · cited 0× · 136 S. Ct. 302; 193 L. Ed. 2d 209; 84 U.S.L.W. 3174; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 6193
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Coffman v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Fla.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2014-12-01 · Published · cited 0× · 135 S. Ct. 742; 190 L. Ed. 2d 464
Justice KAGANtook no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Smith v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Colo.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-04-29 · Published · cited 4× · 569 U.S. 968; 185 L. Ed. 2d 905; 133 S. Ct. 2050; 81 U.S.L.W. 3616; 2013 WL 1788137; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3479
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Startup v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-12-02 · Published · cited 0× · 134 S. Ct. 724; 187 L. Ed. 2d 577; 82 U.S.L.W. 3330; 571 U.S. 1086; 2013 WL 6223257; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8533
Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Supreme Court of N.M. v. United Statespublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 78; 199 L. Ed. 2d 184; 86 U.S.L.W. 3157; 2017 WL 1740292; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5405
Justice GORCUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
United States v. Supreme Court of N.M.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 130; 199 L. Ed. 2d 184; 86 U.S.L.W. 3157; 2017 WL 2444653; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5056
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Boyd v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneyspublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 95; 199 L. Ed. 2d 187
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Grp. of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gillpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-06-27 · Published · cited 0× · 570 U.S. 931; 186 L. Ed. 2d 933; 133 S. Ct. 2884; 81 U.S.L.W. 3714; 2013 WL 3213552; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4938
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2019-12-13 · Published · cited 0× · 140 S. Ct. 660; 205 L. Ed. 2d 417
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Downs v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rspublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-11-12 · Published · cited 0× · 134 S. Ct. 624; 187 L. Ed. 2d 411; 82 U.S.L.W. 3279; 571 U.S. 1018; 2013 WL 5236722; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8072
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Osornio v. Supreme Court of the U.S.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2020-03-23 · Published · cited 0× · 140 S. Ct. 2530; 206 L. Ed. 2d 475
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Brown v. U.S. Supreme Courtpublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2022-11-30 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THURMAN JEROME BROWN Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-2042 (CKK) v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (November 30, 2022) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s [5
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Bauerpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-05-15 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 2138; 198 L. Ed. 2d 222; 85 U.S.L.W. 3540; 2017 WL 1300190; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2959
No opinion found. Click here to view source material.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Curry v. Supreme Court of the U.Spublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2019-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 139 S. Ct. 1385; 203 L. Ed. 2d 618
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →
Matelyan v. Supreme Court of U.S.public domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2016-10-31 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 398; 196 L. Ed. 2d 312; 85 U.S.L.W. 3209; 2016 WL 5131904; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 6684
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · find the judge →

Local ordinances — read them yourself

If your issue is a city or county ordinance, you can pull the actual text here and work through it yourself (or with an AI helper). These are finders and official code portals — we link where the codes live, not a guess at any one ordinance’s URL.

Find your city / county code

Municode Library
The largest host of municipal & county codes — pick your state, then your city/county to read its ordinances.
American Legal Publishing — Code Library
The other major municipal-code host; many mid-size and large cities publish here.
General Code / eCode360
A third national code host, common in the Northeast and Midwest.
Law Library of Congress — U.S. State & Local Government
Official Library of Congress research guide to finding state and local law.
Cornell LII — Municipal / local law
Plain-language background on how municipal ordinances work and where they sit under state law.

Example jurisdiction code portals

New York City — Administrative Code & Rules
Example of a city’s own code/rules portal (NYC).
City of Los Angeles — Municipal Code
Example of a large-city code hosted on a national platform.

AI-generated — not legal advice. Everything this tool produces is AI-generated legal INFORMATION and fill-in-the-blank structure. It is not legal advice, it is not a lawyer, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines, page limits, and procedures vary by court and change over time — verify every specific in your court’s own rules before you rely on it.

What to do with it: take the draft or notes to a licensed attorney, a legal-aid clinic, or your court’s self-help center; and file through the court’s official system. Most courts use an e-filing portal (federal courts: PACER/CM-ECF; many state courts have their own e-file site) and publish free pro-se packets and clerk help lines. When a deadline or a right is on the line, get a human lawyer — a federal-defender or public-defender office for criminal/habeas matters.

Frequently asked questions

What is the "exhaustion ladder" for appeals?

It is the fixed order you must challenge a court loss in: direct appeal, then a motion for reconsideration or new trial, then state post-conviction/state habeas, then discretionary review in the state supreme court, then certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, then federal habeas corpus, and only then the extraordinary writs like mandamus. Taking a step out of order can permanently forfeit ("burn") a later option.

Why can filing federal habeas too early hurt me?

Federal habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254 for state prisoners, § 2255 for federal) requires that you first exhaust state remedies (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)). Filing before you finish the state process can get the petition dismissed, the AEDPA one-year clock (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)) can run out, a claim can be procedurally defaulted, and a second petition needs the court of appeals’ permission. Get a lawyer or a federal-defender office before filing.

When is a writ of mandamus appropriate?

Mandamus is a last resort after ordinary appeals fail and an official or agency still refuses to perform a clear, non-discretionary duty, when no other adequate remedy exists. It rests on statute now — 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the All Writs Act (§ 1651), and for agencies the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(1)).

Does this tool give legal advice?

No. It is AI-generated legal information and a fill-in-the-blank scaffold — not legal advice and not a lawyer. Deadlines and rules vary by court and change; verify every specific in your court’s own rules, and take a draft to a licensed attorney, a legal-aid clinic, or your court’s self-help center.