Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Claims in a Successive Application Must Meet a Rigid Standard under AEDPA

Text: 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).