Whether § 2244(b)(3)(D)'s 30-day deadline for deciding motions for authorization is binding or merely advisory

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2016, Sebastian Eccleston, a federal prisoner, filed a motion in the court of appeals requesting authorization to pursue a second or successive post-conviction action in the district court. Section 2244(b)(3)(D) of the federal post-conviction statute specifies that “[tlhe court of appeals shall grant or deny . . . authorization to file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of [a] motion” for authorization. The court of appeals (for unspecified reasons) sua sponte abated Mr. Eccleston’s motion and—over Mr. Eccleston’s objection—has kept the case abated without explanation for more than three years. The following questions are presented: (1) Whether § 2244(b)(3)(D)’s 30-day deadline for deciding motions for authorization is binding or merely advisory. (2) | Whether the Tenth Circuit’s three-year delay in resolving this case constitutes such a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. ii