Court Opinion

ID: 9821713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:23:05.31513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:17.088057
License: Public Domain

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment reached by my colleagues, but write separately to note my disagreement with a prior decision by a panel of our Court. See Moore v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 457 Fed.Appx. 170 (3d Cir.2012). The panel in Moore failed to give proper deference under the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and ordered an evidentiary hearing that was not permitted under fed*164eral law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Morris v. Beard, 633 F.3d 185, 193 (3d Cir.2011); Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386, 391-93 (3d Cir.2010). Nevertheless, the law of the case doctrine requires me to follow our prior panel’s decision and review this case accepting the procedural posture in which it arises. See In re City of Phila. Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 717 (3d Cir.1998). For that reason, I concur in the judgment only.