Opinion ID: 783175
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Limitations Under the AEDPA

Text: 14 As amended by the AEDPA, § 2255 bars successive applications unless they contain claims relying on 15 (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 the movant guilty of the offense; or 16 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 17 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ¶ 8. A separate provision, also enacted as part of the AEDPA, places similar restrictions on state prisoners seeking to file successive applications under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2002). See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b)(2) (West Supp.2002). 18 An additional limit created by the AEDPA provides that any claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application must be dismissed. Id. § 2244(b)(1). Although this rule is limited by its terms to § 2254 applications, some courts have also applied it to § 2255 applications. See Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir.2002); Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 758 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We need not decide here whether to follow this approach.