In re Trotter, 544 F. App'x 392

Trotter, a Mississippi prisoner, seeks authorization to file a second or successive §2254 application challenging his 1981 murder conviction and life sentence.
The district court transferred the case to the Fifth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because it allegedly lacked jurisdiction due to a successive petition issue.
Trotter contends the Mississippi Parole Board breached his plea agreement by denying parole while federal parole on a consecutive kidnapping sentence was granted.
He further contends he was entitled to parole and to be present at his parole hearing, and he asserts actual innocence of the murder.
A successive §2254 application requires certification for newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule under §2244(b)(2).
The court analyzes whether the claims are successive and whether the §1631 transfer was proper, then addresses the innocence claim and disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Trotter's parole-related claims successive a §2254 petition?	Not successive since they arose after the first petition and concern parole proceedings, not the underlying conviction.	Parole claims are tied to the conviction and should be treated as a challenge to the underlying judgment.	Parole claims are not successive; thus §1631 transfer was improper for those claims.
Does the breach-of-plea claim constitute a challenge to the conviction and require transfer under §1631?	The breach affects the conviction and warrants proper transfer.	Not necessary to treat as a new petition; claims may be handled separately if properly authorized.	Breach-of-plea claim constitutes a challenge to the conviction and is properly transferred under §1631.
Is the actual innocence claim cognizable and was it properly addressed?	Actual innocence should excuse or permit the successive filing.	Actual innocence already raised in the first §2254 and must be dismissed under §2244(b)(1).	Actual innocence claim must be dismissed.

In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234 (5th Cir.1998) (not every prior application makes a later one 'successive')
Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir.2009) (ripe claims or abuse of the writ influence successiveness)
United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2000) (defendant's ability to raise claims is constrained by successive-petition doctrine)
Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (5th Cir.2012) (jurisdictional transfer considerations under §1631 when petition is successive)
Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833 (5th Cir.2003) (time-credit claims vs. underlying conviction as to successiveness)