Source: https://casetext.com/case/stevenson-v-collier-1
Timestamp: 2018-11-13 00:49:39
Document Index: 752254123

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244']

By Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Before the Court is the petitioner's Motion to District Court to Reopen Case Based on Newly Obtained Evidence Records to Show/Support Failure to Investigate Claims, received on July 23, 2017 (doc. 48). The motion should be construed as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, opened as a new case, and TRANSFERRED to the court of appeals.
Although Crone involved a challenge to petitioner's holding judgment of conviction followed by a challenge to post-conviction and post-sentence administrative actions that stripped him of good-time credits, Hardemon considered both challenges to be against "the same conviction". --------
Petitioner's federal petition is successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it raises claims that were or could have been raised in his initial federal petitions challenging his conviction. When a petition is second or successive, the petitioner must seek an order from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that authorizes this Court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Fifth Circuit "may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of [§ 2244(b)]." Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). To present a claim in a second or successive application that was not presented in a prior application, the application must show that it is based on: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense; or (2) 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).