# Carl J. Isaacs v. Frederick J. Head

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 6, 2002 · 300 F.3d 1232

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415701

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl J. ISAACS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frederick J. HEAD, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 6, 2002
- **Citations:** 300 F.3d 1232; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15857; 2002 WL 1798526
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmondson
- **Judges:** Edmondson, Anderson, Barkett
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415701

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law because neither the petitioner nor the federal court found any Supreme Court precedent to support the petitioner’s assertion
- finding the protections of Edwards do not apply "to a defendant in Isaacs' position — one who has already been tried and convicted of the crime for which he was taken into custody and with respect to which he asserted a right to counsel"
- finding the protections of Edwards do not apply "to a defendant in Isaacs’ position—one who has already been tried and convicted of the crime for which he was taken into custody and with respect to which he asserted a right to counsel”
- discussing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “good cause” under Rule 6 as ‘“where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief, it is the d…
- observing that the petitioner did not explain why the discovery he now seeks is any different from the discovery that was available to him in state courts and that, under such circumstances, the district court properly denied the petitioner’s request to conduct additional disc…

## Opinion text

EDMONDSON, Chief Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I agree that AEDPA applies. As I understand the law, deciding this case accurately is no complicated or laborious task. I easily accept that the pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia were not contrary to and did not involve unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415701. Public record. Not legal advice.