Opinion ID: 548382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issues Raised in Both Petitions

Text: 6 It is entirely proper for the district court to raise on its own motion the issue of a repetitive petition or abuse of the writ. Matthews, 833 F.2d at 1170; Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 163 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976, 104 S.Ct. 2356, 80 L.Ed.2d 829 (1984). Moreover, the decision to dismiss the petition summarily under Rule 9(b) lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. Daniels v. Blackburn, 763 F.2d 705, 707-08 (5th Cir.1985). 7 A petition for writ of habeas corpus which merely realleges grounds alleged in an earlier petition may properly be dismissed under Rule 9(b) if the prisoner cannot establish an adequate justification for filing a repetitive petition. Andre v. Guste, 850 F.2d 259 (5th Cir.1989); Daniels, 763 F.2d at 707. Here, Schouest has filed a successive petition solely for the purpose of resurrecting the right to appeal that he lost when he failed to appeal the denial of his first petition. This Court has already considered this precise issue-- 8 [the prisoner] simply suggests that he should be allowed to maintain the present action because he was unable to appeal his prior petition's dismissal [due to the fault of either his own counsel, the Fifth Circuit, or the United States Postal Service] 9 --and held that this reason [resurrection of the right to appeal] is insufficient to prevent the district court from determining that [the] second petition should be dismissed as repetitive pursuant to Rule 9(b). Andre, 850 F.2d at 262. Accordingly, the district court did not err here in dismissing the repetitive portions of Schouest's petition under Rule 9(b). 10