In Re Rains
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19355
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rains, pro se movant, seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
- He previously pled guilty in Oklahoma to bombing threats and robberies and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10, 20, and 20 years.
- Rains filed a first § 2254 petition in 2007, raising multiple claims; the district court dismissed as time-barred under AEDPA and he did not appeal.
- He filed a second § 2254 petition in 2008, reasserting the first, third, and fourth claims; the district court dismissed as unauthorized and non-transferable.
- Rains now argues AEDPA does not apply and seeks authorization to present all four claims again in a second or successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AEDPA bar second petitions reasserting earlier claims? | Rains (Rains) asserts House does not apply and claims are new for exhaustion. | Rains's earlier dismissal constitutes a merits adjudication, making subsequent petitions second or successive under §2244(b)(1). | Yes; §2244(b)(1) bars and the petition is second or successive. |
| Does House v. Bell affect the second-petition analysis here? | House allows first-petition innocence-based review and should render claims new. | House does not govern second or successive petitions; it does not alter §2244(b) requirements. | No; House is inapplicable to second or successive petitions. |
| Should Rains be authorized to proceed with a second or successive petition? | District court never considered claims, so they are unexhausted and not barred. | Dismissal of prior petitions as untimely/time-barred counts as adjudication on the merits and triggers §2244(b)(1) bar. | Denied; authorization denied; petition barred as second or successive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quezada v. Smith, 624 F.3d 514 (2d Cir.2010) (dismissal as untimely constitutes adjudication on the merits, rendering later petitions second or successive)
- In re Flowers, 595 F.3d 204 (5th Cir.2009) (untimely first petition yields second or successive petition status)
- McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2009) (dismissal as untimely constitutes merits disposition; future petitions are second or successive)
- Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.2005) (dismissal for tardiness renders future challenges second or successive)
- Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764 (7th Cir.2003) (previous untimely petition counts as a prior application under §2244(b))
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.2008) (district court may transfer unauthorized second or successive petitions when appropriate)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (addressed defaulted claims in a first federal habeas petition; not applicable to second or successive petitions)