Opinion ID: 2769981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the instant successive application

Text: In the instant successive application, Lambrix indicates that he wishes to raise eight claims in a second or successive § 2254 petition. 2 Specifically, Lambrix alleges that newly discovered evidence establishes that the State violated his constitutional rights, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972), by withholding the following factual predicates or pieces of newly discovered evidence: (1) evidence of an alleged immunity deal that Frances Smith received from the State in return for her cooperation; (2) witness Deborah Hanzel’s alleged recantation of her trial testimony; (3) evidence of a sexual relationship between Smith and a State investigator; (4) the tire iron used to kill Moore contained hairs that did not match the victims but were allegedly consistent with Smith’s and a fake tire iron was admitted against Lambrix at trial; (5) evidence of bias by the judge who presided over Lambrix’s second state trial; (6) evidence that Smith’s testimony regarding a pond on the property where the murders occurred was false; and (7) evidence of a “conspiracy and collaboration” between the State and Smith. Additionally, Lambrix asserts (8) a freestanding claim of actual innocence, citing to the 2 The 100-page brief filed by Lambrix’s counsel in place of this Court’s form application for successive habeas petitions fails to number or clearly delineate Lambrix’s claims. Accordingly, we have derived the claims enunciated in this order from a careful review of Lambrix’s submitted 100-page brief and attached exhibits. 4 Case: 14-15617 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 5 of 12 fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice doctrine enunciated in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S. Ct. 851 (1995), and House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 126 S. Ct. 2064 (2006).