Opinion ID: 606249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Successive Claims

Text: 9 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides that the court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. The Supreme Court has recently held that a court may not reach the merits of successive claims unless the habeas petitioner shows cause and prejudice. Sawyer v. Whitley, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2518 (1992); see also Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1321, 1325 (9th Cir.1992). A section 2255 motion is considered successive if: (1) [T]he second motion presents the same ground determined adversely to the petitioner in the first; (2) the prior determination was on the merits; and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the second motion. United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 164-65 (9th Cir.1987). 10 This court has recognized that a different factual basis or argument asserted to support the same legal theory advanced previously does not constitute a new ground for relief and is successive. Campbell, 982 F.2d at 1324. A denial of a section 2255 motion without a hearing is considered to have been upon the merits if the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner was entitled to no relief. Mayes v. Pickett, 537 F.2d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir.1976), cert. dismissed, 429 U.S. 801 (1977), and cert. denied, 431 U.S. 924 (1977). The ends of justice require federal courts to entertain successive motions where the prisoner supplements his claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 454 (1986); see also Campbell, 982 F.2d at 1331. 11 Perroton's first section 2255 motion resolved that (1) statements made by the district court to Perroton during his guilty plea hearing did not deprive him of his right to direct appeal; and (2) a factual basis for Perroton's guilty plea to bank larceny was established at his plea hearing. In his instant motion Perroton raises virtually identical grounds. 12 The district court's dismissal of his first Section 2255 motion was on the merits. Perroton has not claimed that any elements of his second, successive motion should be reached to serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, we deem as successive Perroton's claims that he was deprived of his right to a direct appeal and that a factual basis was not established regarding his guilty plea to bank larceny.