Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AEDPA's Standard for Habeas Relief

Text: The Ninth Circuit's authorization which enabled Petitioner to file a successive habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) with this Court does not relieve Petitioner of his burden of demonstrating compliance with those requirements before this Court. Petitioner's burden in seeking authorization from the Ninth Circuit was merely to make a prima facie showing of compliance with § 2244(b) for gatekeeper purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Now that he is before this Court, he must actually show that each claim in his pending petition satisfies the statutory requirements. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661, n. 3, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001). While the gatekeeper authorization allowed Petitioner to file any and all claims in a successive petition upon a prima facie showing that any one claim satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), Nevius v. McDaniel, 104 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 1996), Petitioner must now satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as to each claim before that claim can be considered by this Court.
First, any claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The only exception that has been recognized by the Ninth Circuit to the requirement of dismissal for previously presented clams is in extremely narrow circumstances where the claim presented in the previous petition was held to be premature. Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745(9th Cir.1999) (citing Martinez-Villareal v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1997), aff'd, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998)). A claim is not newly presented merely because the petitioner offers new factual bases in support of a legal claim that has already been raised. The Ninth Circuit held that it would not consider new factual grounds in support of the same legal claim that was previously presented, reasoning as follows: A ground is successive if the basic thrust or gravamen of the legal claim is the same, regardless of whether the basic claim is supported by new and different legal arguments. . . . Identical grounds may often be proved by different factual allegations. . . .  Id. (quoting United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664(9th Cir.1998)).
Second, even if the claim has not been previously presented in a federal habeas petition, it must nevertheless be dismissed unless it falls within one of two narrow exceptions: (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(I) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)(B). Petitioner does not rely on a new rule of Constitutional law, so his only possible claim is under the newly discovered factual predicate prong. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B).