Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03117/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lyle Craig Sanders
Petitioner

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 26, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

LYLE CRAIG SANDERS,

Movant.

No. 08-3117

(D.C. No. 5:98-CR-03034-DES)

(D. of Kansas)

ORDER

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Movant Lyle Craig Sanders, a Kansas state prisoner appearing pro se, has

filed a motion for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition, seeking to challenge his 1996 convictions, following a second trial, for

first degree murder and an aggravated weapon violation. We deny authorization.

Mr. Sanders filed a § 2254 petition challenging his conviction in 1998,

which was denied. Sanders v. Nelson, No. 98-3404-DES (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2002)

(unpublished Memorandum and Order). This court denied him a certificate of

appealability. Sanders v. Nelson, 49 F. App’x 778 (10th Cir. 2002). In 2006,

Mr. Sanders sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition,

which was denied. Sanders v. Roberts, No. 06-3098 (10th Cir. May 22, 2006)

(unpublished order).

Appellate Case: 08-3117 Document: 01011789599 Date Filed: 06/26/2008 Page: 1
-2-

In his current motion, Mr. Sanders seeks to claim that the prosecutor

and judge improperly referred to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, that

African-Americans were improperly excluded from the jury, and that he received

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel with respect to the admission of DNA

evidence at trial. Mot. for Authorization at 4-5. He also states that a new DNA

test proves none of his DNA was present, which could prove his innocence. 

Id. at 5.

To obtain permission to file a second or successive § 2254 petition,

Mr. Sanders must show that he has not raised his claim in a previous habeas

petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), and that his new claim either “relies on a new

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” id. § 2244(b)(2)(A), or depends

on facts, previously undiscoverable through the exercise of due diligence, that

would establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional

error, he was not guilty of the offense, id. § 2244(b)(2)(B). 

Mr. Sanders’ proposed claims do not satisfy these criteria. In his first

§ 2254 petition, Mr. Sanders previously raised his claim that minorities were

wrongfully excluded from the jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.

79 (1986), and his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing

to challenge the admissibility of the DNA evidence. See Sanders,

No. 98-3404-DES, slip. op. at 3-4, 10-12, 18-19. He also claimed the prosecutor

Appellate Case: 08-3117 Document: 01011789599 Date Filed: 06/26/2008 Page: 2
-3-

inappropriately asked a juror during voir dire about the O.J. Simpson case. 

See id. at 10-11. Thus, we may not authorize Mr. Sanders to file a second or

successive § 2254 presenting these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (“A claim

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254

that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”). 

Mr. Sanders contends that his Batson claim must be relitigated in light of

Snyder v. Louisiana, U.S. , 128 S. Ct. 1203 (2008), in which the Supreme

Court held that a trial court committed clear error in rejecting a Batson

objection. Assuming that a § 2244(b)(2)(A) claim based on a new,

retroactively-applicable constitutional law can withstand § 2244(b)(1)’s automatic

dismissal requirement for previously-raised claims, Mr. Sanders’ claim still does

not meet the authorization requirements because the Supreme Court has not yet

declared Snyder to be retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See

Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001) (“[A] new rule is not ‘made retroactive to

cases on collateral review’ unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive.”).

In the context of his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim,

Mr. Sanders states that a new DNA test proves none of his DNA was present,

which could prove his innocence. His unexplained and unsupported claim of

new DNA evidence is not, however, sufficient to make a prima facie showing

sufficient to obtain circuit court authorization. A “prima facie showing”

is “simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration

Appellate Case: 08-3117 Document: 01011789599 Date Filed: 06/26/2008 Page: 3
-4-

by the district court.” Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th Cir.

1997). Mr. Sanders provides no information whatsoever about his new DNA

evidence claim, including such basic information as the date of the test and what

was tested, nor does he provide any supporting documentation or information. 

He does not even articulate how the purported new evidence is exculpatory or

might establish that he is actually innocent. We cannot conclude from the motion

for authorization that it is reasonably likely that the proposed new evidence, if

proven and viewed in the light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to

establish that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have

found Mr. Sanders guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). 

Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Sanders authorization to file a second or

successive § 2254 petition. This denial of authorization is not appealable and

shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 08-3117 Document: 01011789599 Date Filed: 06/26/2008 Page: 4