PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 22, 2005
Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 - Amends the federal judicial code to revise the law and procedures for habeas corpus petitions.
Denies or restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions that: (1) have been procedurally barred in a state court; (2) are based upon errors in sentences or sentencing ruled as harmless error by a state court; (3) pertain to capital cases; or (4) challenge the exercise of a states's executive clemency or pardon power.
Revises deadlines for filing appeals to federal courts of state habeas corpus decisions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises procedures for mixed habeas corpus petitions (petitions bringing claims exhausted and unexhausted in state court) to require petitioners to describe how they have exhausted each claim in state court. Requires unexhausted claims to be dismissed with prejudice.
Limits the ability of habeas corpus petitioners to amend petitions or modify or add additional claims.
Requires any period in which a petitioner does not have a habeas corpus petition pending in a state court to be charged against the one year limitation period for filing a federal habeas corpus petition from a state court decision.
Requires requests for financial support for petitioners in a habeas corpus proceeding to be decided by a judge other than the judge presiding over such proceeding. Requires any amount of financial support authorized by a judge to be publicly disclosed.
Extends crime victims' rights to federal habeas corpus proceedings arising out of a state conviction.
People & committees
Rep. Lungren, Daniel E. [R-CA-3] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3035 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3035 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3035 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3035 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.