Court Opinion

ID: 9489225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:09:25.21177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:24.329561
License: Public Domain

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Richard Dennis Oxford’s execution is scheduled for 12:01 a.m. CDT on June 12,1996.
On June 7,1996, the district court ruled on the merits of Oxford’s second habeas petition and denied it. That ruling, in which the district court found Oxford competent to be executed, has not been appealed.
On June 10, 1996, Oxford filed with this Court a motion for an order authorizing him *128to file a third habeas petition in the district court pursuant to the Terrorism Prevention Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, § 106, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. (110 Stat.) 1214,1220-21 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244). In response, the state has suggested, for what clearly are purely tactical reasons, that this Court should grant Oxford’s motion. The state candidly acknowledges that Oxford’s motion does not fulfill the legal standard established by § 2244(b)(3), which governs our authority to authorize the filing of a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994).
We agree with the state’s assessment of our proper authority in matters of this kind. Oxford’s motion does not meet the applicable legal standard. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
We hold not only that Oxford’s motion must be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). We also hold that, under the law antedating the new statute, the proposed third habeas petition would be an abuse of the writ, because the change in the law (Missouri’s repeal on January 1, 1996, of its former Rule 29.15) that, according to Oxford, is the basis for overturning the procedural bar to Oxford’s claims found by this Court in Oxford v. Delo, 59 F.3d 741, 744-45 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1361, 134 L.Ed.2d 528 (1996), could have been raised in Oxford’s recently concluded second habeas petition. Thus, the proposed third petition, if filed, would be subject to dismissal as an abusive petition. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 489, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1467-68, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).
Oxford’s motion to authorize the filing of his third habeas petition is denied. His motion for a stay of execution is denied.