Court Opinion

ID: 9430623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:30:13.277932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:25.257702
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
When a district court is confronted with the question whether the “ends of justice” would be served by entertaining a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus raising a claim that has been rejected on a prior federal petition for the same relief, one of the facts that may properly be considered is whether the petitioner has advanced a “colorable claim of innocence.” But I agree with Justice Brennan that this is not an essential element of every just disposition of a successive petition. More specifically, I believe that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in entertaining the petition in this case, although I would also conclude that this is one of those close cases in which the District Court could have properly decided that a second review of the same contention was *477not required despite the intervening decision in United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980).
On the merits, I agree with the analysis in Part II of Justice Brennan’s dissent. Accordingly, I also would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.