## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT GE OR GE OC HOA,

M o v a n t, v. M A R T Y SI R M O N S, W ar den, O k l a h o m a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 6349

M OTI ON TO F I LE S EC OND OR S UCCE S S I VE P ET I TI ON F OR W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US Ja m e s L . H a n k in s, O k lah o m a C ity , O k lah o m a , fo r M o v a n t. J enni ferB . M i l l er , A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ( W . A . D r ew E dm onds on, A t t o rn e y G e n e r a l fo rO k l a h o m a , w i th h e ro n t h e b r i e f ) , O k l a h o m a C i ty, O k lah o m a , fo r R e sp o n d e n t. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. P ER CURI AM . G e o rg e O c h o a w a s c o n v icte d o f first d e g re e m u rd e r a n d se n ten c e d to d e a th in 1 9 9 6 . See O c h o a v . S ta te , 963 P. 2d 583 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1998) . W i th the deni al of hi s fi r s tfede r al habea s pet i t i on s t i l l underr evi ew on appea l , he nowW hi l e 28 U . S. C . § 2244( b) ( 3) ( D ) pr ovi des t hata mot i on forauthor i zat i on 1 o f a s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n s h o u l d b e r e s o l v e d wi th i n t h i r tyd a y s , t h i s t i me l i m i ti s “hort at oryoradvi s oryr athert han mandat ory . ” B r ow ni ng v. Uni t ed Stat es , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (en b an c) (q u o tat ion o m itted); acco rd In r e Wi l l i a ms , 3 3 0 F .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o lle c tin g c a s e s ). T hi s cas e “r epr es ent s the more compl ex s i tuat i on forw hi ch thatl i m i ti s not pr act i cabl e. ” B r ow ni ng , 241 F. 3d at1264. -2- s eeks t o chal l enge hi s s ent ence on the bas i s thathe i s m ent al l yr et ar ded and he nce ineligible fo r th e d ea th p en altyu n d er A tkin s v . Virg in ia , 5 3 6 U. S . 3 0 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . He con t end s he i s ent i t l ed to proceed o n thi s new cl ai m for tw o reasons: (1) becau se hi s fi r s thabea s act i on has notbeen f i nal l yr es ol ved, the cl ai m i s not“s econd or s ucce s s i ve” forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 2244( b) and thus m aybe br oughtw i thout need of thi s court ’ s author i zat i on underthe s t atut e; and ( 2) i f s uch author i zat i on is ne ce ssary , h e h as m ad e the “p ri m a fac ie sh o w ing , ” re q u ir ed b y§ 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )(C ), thathi s cl ai m s at i s fi es t he condi t i ons forpr ocee di ng on a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habea s pet i t i on undert he new - rul e- of- l aw pr ovi s i on i n § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) . A ft er r evi ew of M r . O choa’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on the A tki ns cl ai m , w e or der ed form al br i efi ng and or al ar gum ent . W e now hol d thatt he pende ncyof an a ppeal fr om 1 th e d e n ial o f

a first p e tit io n d o e s n o t o b v iate th e n e e d fo r a u th o riz a tio n o f n e w ly r ai s ed cl ai m s , butthatM r . O choa ha s m ade the pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng r equi r ed for a u th o ri z a tio n to p ro c e e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( A ). M r . O choa’ s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on w as deni ed i n 2001. H e appe al ed that d isp o sitio n to th is c o u rt, b u t, fo llo w in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s 2 0 0 2 d e c isio n in A tki ns , he r eturned t o s t at e courtt o pur s ue an A tki ns cl ai m w hi l e hi s fi r s thabea sW e a cc ep t th e S tat e’s c o n ce ssion o n this po int. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s 2 ant i ci pat oryhol di ng on the r etr oact i vi tyof the A tki ns rul e i n P enr y v. Lynaugh , 4 9 2 U .S . 3 0 2 , 3 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 9 ), h a s b e e n th o ro u g h ly ex p la in e d e ls e w h e re . S e e , e .g ., In r e Hol laday , 3 3 1 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 2 -7 3 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (c o llec tin g c a se s); D a v is v . No rr is , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 9 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). -3- ap p ea l w as a b ated . U n li k e d efen d an ts tri ed af ter A tki ns , w ho can r ai s e the i s s ue o f m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n in th e irin itia l c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n , se e B lo n n e r v . S ta te , 127 P. 3d 1135 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 2006) ( di s cus s i ng pr ocedur e forr es ol vi ng A tki ns d e fe n se ), M r. O c h o a h a d to p u rsu e h is c laim in th e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o n tex t. O n the bas i s of pr el i m i naryevi dent i arypr ocee di ngs , the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s or der ed a tr i al on the i s s ue of M r . O choa’ s m ent al r et ar dat i on, w hich ul t i m at el yres ult ed in the d enial of h i s A tki ns c la im . S e e O c h o a v . S ta te , 1 3 6 P .3 d 6 6 1 (O k la . C ri m . A p p .), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 680 ( 2006) . T he p ro c e d u ra l an d su b sta n tiv e a d e q u a c yo f th a t p ro c e e d in g is c o n tes ted , b u t th a t is bey ond the s cope of

ourcons i der at i on her e. W i th hi s s t at e r emedi es exhaus t ed, M r. O ch o a fil ed h is m o ti o n fo r l ea v e to p u rsue h ab ea s reli ef u n d er A tki ns . B efor e turni ng t o the i s s ues r ai s ed bythatm ot i on, w e emphas i ze that M r. O c h o a fa lls w ith in a n a rro w c a teg o ryo f h a b e a s p e tit io n e rs. O b v io u slyo n ly thos e fa ci ng t he dea th penal tym ayeven i nvoke A tki ns . A nd A tki ns r efl ect s one of the r ar e i ns t ance s i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thas announce d a new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw thati thas al s o expr es s l ym ade r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . Fi nal l y , M r . O choa w as notonl yconvi ct ed befor e A tki ns 2 b u t h a d a ls o file d a n d b e e n d e n ie d re lie f o n h is fir s t h a b e a s p e titio n b yth a t tim e .-4-

O u r d e c isio n to d a ya u th o riz e s th e p u rsu it o f a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n in lig h t o f th is u n iq u e c o m b in a tio n o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T he N eed for § 2244( b) A ut hori zat i on M r . O choa a r gues as a thr es hol d m at t ert hatauthor i zat i on under§ 2244( b) i s unnece s s arys o l ong as hi s fi r s thabea s act i on has notbeen f i nal l yadj udi cat ed o n a p p e a l. H e re lie s o n a S e c o n d C ir c u it c a s e , Whab v. Uni t ed Stat es , 408 F. 3d 116 ( 2d C i r . 2005) , forthi s pr opos i t i on. N o otherci r cui thas fol l ow ed Whab , and w e dec l i ne t o do s o. W hi l e thi s courthas notaddr es s ed the pr eci s e pr ocedur al ar gum entm ade he r e, i ti s cl ear l ypr ecl uded bygener al pr i nci pl es i n ourcas e l aw a d d re ss in g v a rio u s a ttem p ts to c irc u m v e n t § 2 2 4 4 (b ) re q u ire m e n ts, p a rticu lar ly fol l ow i ng the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G onz al ezv. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524 (2 0 0 5 ) (d e e m in g F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ) m o tio n th a t in ter jec ts n e w c laim s in to h a b e a s a c tio n a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )) . I n Uni t ed Stat es v. Nels on , 4 6 5 F . 3 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 4 8 - 4 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , we hel d thata r eques tt o add new cl ai m s aft ert he di s tr i ctcourthas adj udi cat ed a h a b e a s a c tio n m u st b e p re c e d e d b ya m o tio n to v a c a te u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) a n d th a t, p er G onz al ez , § 2244( b) appl i es t o the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on as i f i tw er e a s ta n d -a lo n e s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n . See a lso United S tates v. P edraza , 466 F. 3d 932, 933- 34 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng pos t -j udgm enteffor tt o r ai s e new cl ai m bym ot i on underR ul e 59( e) i s l i kew i s e equi val entof s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on under§ 2244( b) ) . C ons i s t entw i th Nels on , M r. O c h o a m a yp u rsu e h isI ndeed, § 2244( b) m aynotbe ci r cumvent ed byi nj ect i ng new cl ai m s i nt o a 3 habea s act i on even w hi l e i ti s s t i l l pendi ng i n the distri ctcou rt . I n Uni t ed Stat es v. Es pi noz a- Saenz , 2 3 5 F . 3 d 5 0 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), w e h eld th at th e d istri ct co u rt corr ect l y“tr eat [ed] [a] s uppl ement al [§ 2255] m ot i on as a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on in s te a d o f

a s a n a m e n d m e n t w h ic h re la te d b a c k to h is tim e ly [ o ri g in a l] m o tio n ,” i d. a t 5 0 3 , w h e re it “w a s n o t cla rif y in g , b u t in ste a d so u g h t to a ss e rt c laim s to tally s epar at e and di s t i nct. . . fr om thos e r ai s ed i n [the] or i gi nal m ot i on, ” i d. a t 5 0 5 . -5- A tki ns c la im o n ly b ys e c u ri n g a u th o ri z a tio n th ro u g h a m o tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b ). A nyotherpr ocedur e us ed t o r ai s e the new cl ai m , how everos t ens i bl yas s oci at ed w ith h is in itia l h a b e a s a c tio n , is p ro p e rl yd e e m e d s u c h a m o tio n . M r . O choa e m phas i zes t hati n Nels on , unl i ke her e, no appea l w as pendi ng i n the fi r s thabea s act i on w hen new cl ai m s w er e r ai s ed bypos t -j udgm entm ot i on. B utthi s pr ocedur al ci r cumst ance has nothi ng t o do w i th the r el evanc e of Nels on t o ouranal y s i s . T he poi nti s t hat§ 2244( b) author i zat i on i s r equi r ed w heneve r su b sta n tive ly new cl ai m s ar e r ai s ed; pr ocedur al as s oci at i ons w i th pr i orhabea s m att er s m us tnotobs cur e the fa ctthatthe pet i t i oneri s r eal l ypur s ui ng a s econd or s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. G i ven thi s bas i c poi nt , nothi ng i n G onz al ez , Nels on , orour o th e r c a se s s u g g e sts th a t w h e th e r a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n o r o th e r p ro c e d u ra l v e h icle m aybe us ed t o ci r cumvent§ 2244( b) depends on the i nci dent al fac tthatan appe al i s or i s not pendi ng fr om the under l y i ng habea s pr ocee di ng. 3 T he appr oach a dvocat ed byM r . O choa w oul d gr eat l yunderm i ne the pol i cy a g a in st p iec e m e a l li tig a tio n e m b o d ied in § 2 2 4 4 (b ). M u lti p le h a b e a s c laim s c o u ld be s ucce s s i vel yr ai s ed w i thouts t atut or ycons tr ai ntforas l ong as a fi r s thabea s cas e r emai ned pendi ng i n t he s y s t em. I f the pr opert r eatm entof pos t -j udgm ent-6-

pr ocee di ngs i n habea s , car eful l yexpl ai ned i n G onz al ezt o pr eventpr ocedur al c irc u m v e n tio n o f

§ 2 2 4 4 (b ), lef

t o p e n a n e x c e p tio n th is b ro a d , tha t p o in t w o u ld h av e b ee n m ad e e x p li citin the statu te or, at l ea st, in the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s prim ary d e c is io n im p le m e n tin g th e s ta tu te . W e con cl ud e t hat M r. O cho a’s A tki ns c laim is s e c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e w ith in the meani ng of § 2244( b) . A ccor di ngl y , w e tur n t o hi s al t ernat i ve ar gum entthat h is c la im s a tis fie s th e c o n d itio n s fo r a u th o ri z a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( A ).

S e c o n d o r S u c c e s s i v e Au t h o r i z a t i o n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) T he S t at e con cedes t hat M r. O cho a’s A tki ns cl ai m s at i s fi es t he condi t i ons s t at ed i n § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) , i . e. , the cl ai m “r el i es on a new rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew byt he Supr eme C our t , t hat w as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. ” N everthel es s , t he St at e oppos es author i zat i on b e c a u s e , i tc o n t e n d s , M r . Oc h o a ’ s “ p r i ma fa c i e s h o wi n g ” u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C) m us tal s o i ncl ude a pr el i m i narydemonstr at i on of m ent al r et ar dat i on thathe has notm ade. W e fi nd no bas i s i n t he pl ai n l anguage and func t i onal s tructur e of the s t atut e t o expand ourgat ekee pi ng r ol e t o i ncl ude s uch a mer i t s r evi ew . H avi ng s at i s fi ed the condi t i ons i n § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) , M r . O choa i s ent i t l ed t o pr ocee d on his A tki ns c la im in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . 1 . M er it s R ev iew u n d er § § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2)(A ) & 2 2 4 4 (b )(3)(C ) Sect i on § 2244( b) ( 3) ( C ) di r ect s t he appe l l at e courtt o det erm i ne w hether the pet i t i onerhas “ma[d] e a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng that[hi s ] appl i cat i on s at is f i esIn c o n tra st, w h a t is o f ten re fe rre d to a s th e “ in n o c e n c e ” c o m p o n e n t in 4 § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 )(B ) im p o se s a m e rits-typ e c o n d iti o n to w h ich th e p rim a fa c ie s how i ng att ache s ( though even thi s does notdi r ect l yconce rn the mer i tof the c o n stitu tio n a l cla im itse lf b u t ra th e r th e e x ten t to w h ich its p re d ica te fa c ts u n d e r c u tth e j u r y ’ s fi n d i n g o f g u i l t ) . T h i s d i ffe r e n c e b e twe e n § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) c laim s re stin g o n n e w ru les o f c o n stitu tio n a l law , w h ich re q u ire a sh o w in g o n ly th a ta ru l e i s r e tr o a c t i v e l ya p p l i c a b l e o n c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w, a n d § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B) claim s resti n g o n rules o f law p rev iou slyav ail ab le t o the p eti ti o n er, w h ich re q u ir e a sh o w ing o f n ew fa cts co m p ell ing lyd em o n str ati n g that, ab sen t th e a ll eg ed erro r, n o re a so n a b le ju ryw o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e p e tit io n e r g u iltyo f th e o ffe n se , is es s ent i al t o keep i n m i nd. C as es r efl ect i ng s om ethi ng aki n t o m er i t s r evi ew i n t he evaluat i on of clai m s und er § 22 44 (b) (2) (B ), such as B ennet tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 11 9 F . 3d 46 8, 46 9 (7t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( ho l ding pri m a facie s ho w i ng m ustsugg est “pos s i bl e mer i tt o w arr anta ful l erexpl or at i on byt he di s tr i ctcourt ”) , m aybe corr ecti n t hemsel ves , buttheyl ead t o err ori f r efl exi vel yi m por t ed i nt o the § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) cont ext . A s not ed l at er , t hi s err orunder cut s cas e l aw ci t ed byt he St at e forconduct i ng m er i t s r evi ew of A tki ns c la im s u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( A ). -7- the r equi r em ents of

this s ubs ect i on. ” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is s tatu to rym a n d a te d o e s n o t d ire c t th e a p p e llate c o u rt to e n g a g e in a p re lim in a rym e rits a ss e ss m e n t. R ather , i tfocus es ouri nqui r ys ol el yon the condi t i ons s peci fi ed i n § 2244( b) that j us t i fyr ai s i ng a new habea s cl ai m , i . e. , the cl ai m r el i es on a new rul e of l aw m ade retroac ti v e o n co ll ateral rev iew b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt , 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(A ), ori nvol ves new fac t s cl ear l yand convi nci ngl ys how i ng that , butforthe al l eged cons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e j ur yw oul d have found the pet i t i onergui l tyof th e o ffe n se , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 )(B ). T h e c o n d iti o n s in § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 )(A ), w ith w hi ch w e ar e conc erned, l ook s ol el yt o t empora l i s s ues r el at i ng t o the a v a ila b ili ty of the cons t i tut i onal author i tyi nvoked, nott o anyas s es s m entr egar di ng the s tr ength of the pet i t i oner ’ s cas e. 4U n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(E ), th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 ) a u th o riz a tio n is 5 n o t ap p e a lab le a n d m a yn o t b e th e su bjec t o f a p e tit io n fo r re h e a rin g o r fo r a w rit of ce r t i or ar i . I f author i zat i on i s gr ant ed, of cour s e, t he ca s e pr ocee ds i n the di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch under§ 2244( b) ( 4) has fi nal s ayr egar di ng s at i s fac t i on of § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 ) co n d it ion s, su bject t o o rdin aryap p ell ate rev iew fo ll o w ing the e n try o f ju d g m e n t in th e e v e n t a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyis g ra n ted w ith re sp e c t to th e is s u e , s ee LaFevers v. G i bs on, 2 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 6 -6 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). -8- N ori s the author i zat i on pr oces s s tructur ed t o s ugges tan i nqui rybey ond t he condi t i ons s peci fi ed i n § 2244( b) ( 2) . T he typi cal author i zat i on pr ocee di ng i s an e x p a r t e m a t t e r , w i th l i t t l e i f a n y fa c tu a l r e c o r d , th a ti s t o b e d e c i d e d

– c o n c l u s i v e l y, if d e n ied

– in th irtyd a y s. T h e se p a ra m e ter s in d ica te a stre a m lin e d p ro c e d u re w ith

5 a narr ow focus on a fi xed s etof pr e- s peci fi ed and e as i l yas s es s ed cr i t er i a, w hi ch w o u ld b e d isru p ted b ye n g a g in g th e m a n ifo ld m e rits iss u e s ra ise d b yp o ten tially c o m p lex , fa c t-b o u n d c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s. M o re o v e r, th e a u th o riz a tio n p ro c e ss is as s i gned t o an ap

p e lla te court , w hos e i ns t i tut i onal r ol e or di nar i l yexcl udes evi dence - gather i ng and fa ct - fi ndi ng of the s or ti m pl i cat ed, forexampl e, i n the St at e’ s demand t hatw e make a det erm i nat i on i n the fi r s ti ns t ance w hether M r. O c h o a is in fa c t m e n tallyre tar d e d . T h e d istrib u tio n o f ju d icia l re sp o n sib ili ty r efl ect ed i n t he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e–byw hi ch the appe l l at e courtm akes a n e x p e d ited a ss e ss m e n t o f w h e th e r a n e w h a b e a s c laim fa lls w ith in a fo rm a lly defi ned ca t egoryand, i f i tdoes , then l eave s t he adj udi cat i on of thatcl ai m t o the di s tr i ctcourti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance –i s cl ear l yi n keepi ng w i th the r es pect i ve r ol es of a p p e lla te a n d tr ia l c o u rt s in o u r s y s te m .-9-

W e have neverdi r ect l yaddr es s ed the br oad ques t i on w hether§ 2244( b) r evi ew i ncl udes a mer i t s - s cr eeni ng of pr opos ed s econd ors ucce s s i ve cl ai m s . B ut ourdeci s i on i n Ha t c h v . Ok la h o ma , 9 2 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by D ani els v. Uni t ed Stat es , 2 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 8 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 2001) , excl udi ng exhaus t i on i s s ues fr om the author i zat i on i nqui rys tr ongl yi m pl i es that m eri t s r eview i s not a partof o ur gat ekeep i ng rol e i n the process: T h is cl aim [a § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(A ) claim b ase d o n the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s then- r ece ntabr ogat i on of O kl ahoma’ s s cheme forhandl i ng tr i al compet encyi s s ues i n Co op e rv . Ok la h o ma , 5 1 7 U .S . 3 4 8 (1 9 9 6 )] is notexhaus t ed. . . . E xhaus t i on i s not , how ever , a pr econdi t i on t o our cons i der at i on of thi s A ppl i cat i on forO r derA uthor i zi ng a Succe s s i ve Pet i t i on forH abea s C orpus R el i ef. W er e w e t o gr antthi s appl i cat i on, the d istri ct co u rtw o u ld the n h av e b efo re itthe m erit s o f H atch ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n , an d in th a t co n tex t th e d istric t co u rt w o u ld n e e d to deci de w hethert he cl ai m w as exhaus t ed orw hetherw ai verof the e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e me n ti s wa rr a n t e d . I n th i s p r o c e e d i n g , h o we v e r , we ar e mer el yper form i ng a gat ekee pi ng funct i on. E xhaus t i on of the C oopercl ai m i s nota pr er equi s i t e t o ourcons i der at i on of the ques t i on w hethera s ucce s s i ve appl i cat i on i s appr opr i at e [unde rthe condi t i ons s p e c ifie d in . . . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )] . Id. at 10 1 6 (cit ati o n o m itted). T he br oaderpoi nti m pl i ed i n Hat ch r ece i ved more expl i ci tr ecogni t i on by the Four th C i r cui ti n In r e Wi l l i a ms , 330 F. 3d 277 ( 4th C i r . 2003) , w hi ch s t at ed th a t au th o riz a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 ) tu rn s o n “ th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e c laim s in a s ucce s s i ve appl i cat i on w i l l s at i s fythe s tr i ngentr equi r ement s forthe fi l i ng of a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n , n o t th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e c laim s w ill u lti m a tely w arr anta dec i s i on i n favorof the appl i cant . ” Id. at282 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on-10-

o m itte d ). O th e r c ir c u its h a v e is s u e d d e c is io n s to u c h in g o n th is p o in t a s w e ll. See, e. g. , In r e Jos hua , 224 F. 3d 1281, 1282 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( not i ng appar ent m er i t s defi ci enci es of cl ai m r ai s ed under§ 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) , butexcl udi ng them f ro m a u th o riz a tio n in q u iry“ b e c a u se th e ya re n o t re lev a n t to w h e th e r [ th e m o v a n t] ca n o b tai n p erm issi o n to b ri n g a se co n d o r suc ce ssive § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n to v ac ate” ); In r e Salaz ar , 4 4 3 F .3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 4 n .2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (ra isin g q u e stio n “ w h e th e r, in ourr ol e as ‘ gat ekee per ’ under[§ 2244( b) ] w e have the s t atut or yauthor i tyt o deny a m o tio n fo r a u th o ri z a tio n ” o n b a s is th a t u n d e rl y in g c la im is tim e -b a rr e d ). T he St at e neve r thel es s ar gues thatthe “pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng” r equi r ed by § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(C ) m u st re fe r to th e m e rits o f th e u n d e rly in g c laim b e c a u se th e re is nothi ng el s e i tcoul d r efe rt o and s t atut oryl anguage s houl d notbe cons trued t o be m eani ngl es s . W e di s agr ee. T he poi ntof the l anguage i s t o m ake i tcl earthatthe a u th o r i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r tu n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C ) i s o n l y a pr el i m i narydet erm i nat i on thata cl ai m s at i s fi es the s t atut or ycondi t i ons ; i ti s for th e d istric t co u rt, u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )(4 ), to c o n f irm th a t “th e p e tit io n d [ o e s], in fa c t, sa tisf yth e re q u ire m e n ts o f

§ 2 2 4 4 (b )” w h e n it h e a rs th e c a se (a n d to su m m a rily d is m is s if

th e re q u ir e m e n ts a re n o t m e t) . LaFeve rs v. G i bs on , 238 F. 3d 1263, 1 2 6 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h is a ss e ss m e n t– w h e n d o n e p re lim in a rilyb ya n a p p e llate c o u rt o r c o n c lu siv e lyb yth e d istric t co u rt– is n o t m e a n in g les s s im p lyb e c a u se it p re c e d e s c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e m e rits o f

th e c laim . T o sa yth a t itis m e a n in g les s is t o saythat the st atutorycon strai nts on second or successi ve p et i t i on s ar e t oo thles s,-11-

a p o int be li ed b ythe d en ial o f c o u n tl ess m o ti o n s u n d er § 2 2 4 4 (b). A n d w h il e the re is a m o re in -d e p th , ev id e n tiary i n q u iryfo r th e a u th o riz a tio n o f a n in n o c e n c e c laim u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( B ), s ee supra not e 4, the author i zat i on of a ne w - rul e- of- l aw cl ai m under§ 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) r equi r es us t o det erm i ne that( a) the rul e r el i ed on r e fl e c t s a s u ffi c i e n td e p a r tu r e f r o m p r e c e d e n tt o e n t a i l a n e w ru l e ; ( b ) th e S u p r e me C our thas m ade the rul e r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew ( byno m eans a lw a y s a c u t- a n d -d ri e d m a tte r, s e e , e .g ., cas es di s cus s i ng A tki ns’re tro a c tiv ity supra n o te 2); an d (c) the n ature an d ti m ing o f th e n ew rule a n d the p eti ti o n er’s pr ocedur al hi s t orys how t hatt he rul e w as “pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e” w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e sta tu te. A s b o th th e su b sta n c e a n d f re q u e n t co n se q u e n c e o f th is i nqui ryr efl ect , ouri m pl ement at i on of the pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng r equi r ementi s not m e a n in g le s s . I n s um , t he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e di r ect s us t o focus s ol el yon the condi t i ons C ongr es s has des i gnat ed as contr ol l i ng w i th r es pectt o the author i zat i on o f se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n s. A n d th o se c o n d iti o n s s p e c ified in § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) forthe pur s ui tof cl ai m s r es t i ng on new rul es of cons t i tut i onal l aw do noti nvol ve the appe l l at e courti n anypr el i m i naryas s es s m entof the mer i tof th e c la im s fo r w h ic h s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e a u th o ri z a tio n is s o u g h t.-12-

2. Show i ng of

M ent al R et ardat i on for Atkins C la im O u r c o n c lu sio n th a t C o n g re ss d id n o t in c lu d e a p re lim in a rym e rits re v iew in the a u tho ri za ti o n inq u iryu n d er § 2 2 4 4 (b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) d ir ec tl yu n d erc u ts th e S tat e’s op po si t i on t o M r. O cho a’s A tki ns cl ai m . T he S t at e i nsi st s that M r. O cho a m ust m a k e a p rim a fa c ie s h o w in g o f m e n tal re tar d a tio n b e fo re h e m a yp ro c e e d o n th is cl ai m . T hati s a par adi gm at i c exa m pl e of i nj ect i ng the mer i t s of a c l ai m i nt o the author i zat i on i nqui r y : the pet i t i oner ’ s m ent al r et ar dat i on is t he A tki ns cl ai m ; t he cons t i tut i onal val i di tyof a pe t i t i oner ’ s capi t al s ent ence hi nges ent i r el yon that s i ngl e pr emi s e. Forthe r eas ons expl ai ned above , r es ol vi ng M r . O choa’ s m ot i on for§ 2244( b) author i zat i on on the bas i s t hathe has orhas notdemonstr at ed the stre n g th o f

th is c e n tra l ele m e n t o f h is c a se w o u ld tak e u s o u tsid e th e a u th o rityw ith w hi ch w e ar e i nves t ed bythe s t atut e. D evel opm entand r es ol ut i on of the ment al r e t a r d a t i o n i s s u e i s , r a th e r , th e p r o v i n c e o f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s we p ro p e rl ya u th o ri z e o n th e d is tin c t g ro u n d s s p e c ifie d in § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( A ). W e ar e aw ar e of s om e ca s e author i ty , r el i ed on byt he St at e, r equi r i ng a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of m ent al r et ar dat i on befor e al l ow i ng a pet i t i onert o pr ocee d on an A tki ns cl ai m under§ 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) . A s expl ai ned bel ow , t hi s cas e l aw d e r i v e s f

r o m a mi s a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n i n n o c e n c e - r e l a t e d p r i n c i p l e d e r i v e d f r o m a s e m in a l § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( B ) c a s e , a c o n f u s io n w e h a v e c a re f

u lly trie d to a v o id . See supra not e 4. M or e funda m ent al l y , t hi s cas e l aw focus es s i ngul ar l yon A tki ns cl ai m s , t o the exc l us i on of the l ar geri m pl i cat i ons of m er i t s r evi ew i n the s econd-13-

ors ucce s s i ve cont ext , and as a cons equenc e does notaddr es s the br oadert extual a n d s tru c tu ra l c o n s id e ra tio n s u n d e rp in n in g o u r d e c is io n h e re . S h o rtlya f

ter p a ss a g e o f

th e sta tu to rysc h e m e u n d e r re v iew , the S e v e n th C i r cui taddr es s ed the “pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng” l anguage i n § 2244( b) ( 3) ( C ) and, c o n sis ten t w ith w h a t w e h a v e sa id , rela ted it t o w h e th e r “ it ap p e a rs r e a so n a b ly l i kelythe ap pli cat i on sat i sfi es the st ri ng ent r equ i rem ents f orthe f i l i ng of a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pe t i t i on . ” B ennet tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 4 6 8 , 4 6 9 -70 (7th C ir . 1997) ( emphasi s added) . M or eover , i n di s cus s i ng the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s confi r m at i on o f th a t d e te rm in a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 4 ), B e n n e ttd isa ss o c iate d it fro m th e m e rits of the cl ai m for w hich aut ho ri zat i on i s sough t : “[T ]he di stri ctcou rtm ustdis m i ss th e m o tio n th a t w e h a v e a llo w e d th e a p p lic a n t to file , w ith o u t re a c h in gth e m e rits of the m ot i on , if th e c o u rt fin d s th a t th e m o v a n t h a s n o t sa tisfied th e re q u ire m e n ts forthe fi l i ng of s uch a mot i on. ” Id. a t 4 7 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B u t th e c laim in B e n n e tt i nvol ved new evi dence of i nnocenc e, s o the courtpr oper l yas s es s ed the s tr ength of thatevi dence t o det erm i ne w hetheri tm ade “ a s uffi ci ents how i ng of pos s i bl e mer i tt o w arr anta ful l erexpl or at i on bythe di s tr i ctcour t . ” Id. at 46 9 . It i s this form ulat i on of the pri m a facie s ho w i ng requi rem ent, divorced from the rest o f th e c o u rt ’s discu ssion an d im p o rt ed into the § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(A ) co n text w h ere ther e i s no evi dent i arycomponent , thathas gi ven r i s e t o the anomal ous tr eatm ent of A tki ns c la im s in s o m e c a s e s .-14-

W hen the Fi fth C i r cui tw as pr es ent ed w i th a mot i on s eeki ng author i zat i on fora new l yr ecogni zed A tki ns cl ai m under§ 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) , i tr el i ed on B e n n e ttto r equi r e the pet i t i onernotonl yt o s at i s fythe condi t i ons s peci fi ed i n the s t atut e but a ls o to m a k e a n e v id e n tia ry sh o w in g th a t h e w a s in fa c t m e n ta lly re ta rd e d . In re Mo rr is , 328 F. 3d 739, 740- 41 ( 5th C i r . 2003) . T he Mo rr is courtdi d notoffe rany r at i onal e t i ed t o the s t atut e foraddi ng the mer i t s componentt o the author i zat i on i nqui ry . R ather , i tj us tci t ed B en n ett ’s defi ni t i on of the pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng l anguage as r equi r i ng a “s uffi ci ents how i ng of pos s i bl e mer i tt o w arr anta ful l er expl or at i on byt he di s tr i ctcourt . ” Id. a t 7 4 0 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h e E lev e n th C i r cui tpr om pt l yfol l ow ed Mo rr is , adopt i ng B en n ett ’s form ul at i on and hol di ng t hat author i zat i on foran A tki ns cl ai m w as pr operonl y“i f pet i t i oner ’ s pr oofs , w hen m eas ur ed aga i ns tt he ent i r e r ecor d i n thi s cas e, es t abl i s h a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood thathe i s i n fac tm ent al l yr et ar ded. ” In r e Hol laday , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 . T h e S ix th C i r cui tadopt ed the s ame appr oach, fol l ow i ng Hol laday and B e n n e tt , i n In re B ow l i ng , 4 2 2 F .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 3 5 3 (20 0 6 ). A s e x p la in e d a b o v e , B en n ett ’s fo rm u latio n re g a rd in g a “ sh o w in g o f p o ss ib le m er i tt o w arr anta ful l erexpl or at i on bythe di s tr i ctcour t ” had a n aptr efe r enti n t he cont extof § 2244( b) ( 2) ( B ) , i . e. , the condi t i on thatnew evi dence demonstr at es the pet i t i oner ’ s i nnocenc e. B utt he B e n n e ttform ul at i on i s m i s us ed i f r el i ed on i n the § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) cont extas t he pr emi s e fora pr el i m i narym er i t s i nqui ryhavi ng no b a s is in th e c o n d itio n s s e t o u t in th a t s e c tio n .-15-

W e re c o g n ize th a t th e re is a n o th e r c o n c e rn u n d e rly in g e ffo rts to injec t a m erit s-relat ed elem en t i n the a u tho ri za ti o n inq u iryfo r A tki ns cl ai m s : “otherw i s e, then l i t er al l yanypr i s onerundera dea th s ent ence coul d br i ng an A tki ns cl ai m i n a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on r egar dl es s of hi s orheri nt el l i gence . ” In re Hol laday , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 3 n .1 . B u t, as a p o licyra tio n a le fo r in c lu d in g m e rits re v iew a s p a rt o f

th e § 2 2 4 4 (b ) a u th o riz a tio n p ro c e ss (a lb e it p e c u liarlylim ited to A tki ns cl ai m s ) , thi s i s an ar gum entforamendm entof the s t atut e, w hi ch i s the p ro v in c e o f

C o n g re ss , n o t th e c o u rts. M o re o v e r, itis n o t a v e ryc o m p e lli n g p o in t, g iven the n arro w ca tego ryo f c ase s o u r de cisi o n tod ayaffe cts. Itw o u ld h av e m o re w e ig h t if c a rrie d to its lo g ica l co n c lu sio n , i. e ., to a b ro a d p ro p o sa l fo r m e rits s cr eeni ng pers e. B uti n thateventi tw oul d s eem a r edundantm eas ur e, s i nce underR ul e 4 of the R ul es G overni ng § 2254 C as es the di s tr i ctcourt s al r eady e n g a g e in a m e rits sc re e n in g o f a ll h a b e a s p e tit io n s. A n d re a ss ig n in g th a t ro le to the appe l l at e court s s eems i l l - conce i ved as an i ns t i tut i onal m at t er , as w e l ack the m eans t hat a tri al cou rthas t o d evelop an d d i spose of often fact -i ntensi ve clai m s. I ndeed, the ext ens i ve ana l y s es r equi r ed of c our t s thatengage i n m er i t s s cr eeni ng of A tki ns cl ai m s , oft en di ffi cul tt o di s t i ngui s h fr om ful l - s cal e mer i t s r evi ew , bel i es the i dea thatthi s i s a s i m pl e thr es hol d i nqui ryappr opr i at e fors um m arytr eatm ent b ya n a p p e lla te c o u rt . See, e. g. , In r e Salaz ar , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 4 3 2 -3 4 ; In r e Bow l i ng , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 4 3 7 -3 9 ; In r e Hol laday , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 -7 6 .-16-

Ba s e d o n s a t i s fa c t i o n o f th e c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i fi e d i n § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) , we G R A N T M r . O choa a uthor i zat i on t o pur s ue a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on r ai s i ng an A tki ns c h a llen g e to h is d e a th se n ten c e . T h is d e c isio n is n o t ap p e a lab le a n d m a yn o t b e th e su bjec t o f a p e tit io n fo r re h e a rin g o r fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 3 )( E ).