In ordinary civil litigation, if a plaintiff fails to file a complaint on time, the plaintiff cannot do so later; he loses. In habeas corpus cases, however, the filing period can be tolled for equitable reasons. In this case, the original lawyers for Christeson, a condemned state prisoner, did not file a habeas petition on his behalf before the filing time had elapsed. Different lawyers later sought to be substituted as counsel for Christeson so that they could argue that his earlier lawyers had abandoned him, a claim that Christeson's original lawyers could not advance without damaging their own professional interests. The district court refused to allow the new lawyers to become Christeson's counsel, however, and the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, apparently reasoning that Christeson's new counsel were not authorized to file an appeal on his behalf. In a per curiam opinion for seven Justices, the Supreme Court reversed and held that only new lawyers could adequately raise the claim that there was a conflict of interest between Christeson and his original counsel, a claim that, if accepted, would excuse Christeson from not having filed his habeas petition on time. Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Thomas, concluding that the Court ought not to have decided the case without full briefing and oral argument.