Karen Chades v. Molly Hill, 976 F.3d 1055

Background

In 2004 Karen Denise Chades was convicted of first-degree murder in California; her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2007 she filed a federal habeas petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a PTSD-based imperfect self-defense theory tied to childhood sexual abuse; the district court denied relief on the merits and this court later affirmed on other grounds.
In 2016 Chades filed a state habeas petition presenting new evidence (her testimony, family corroboration, and a psychologist) supporting PTSD; the state trial court denied relief as meritless and procedurally barred; state appellate review was denied.
Chades then applied to the Ninth Circuit for authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition, arguing her first federal habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the PTSD claim — so §2244(b)(1)’s waiver/ dismissal of repeated claims is unconstitutional as applied.
The Ninth Circuit concluded it lacked authority under AEDPA to authorize filing of the proposed successive petition, refused to reach the as-applied constitutional challenge to §2244, declined to transfer the matter to the district court, and noted the Supreme Court remains an available forum.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may authorize filing of Chades’s second-or-successive habeas petition under AEDPA	Chades: her initial federal habeas counsel was ineffective in failing to develop the PTSD claim, so she should be allowed to file a successive petition to raise that claim	Respondent: AEDPA §2244(b)(1) requires dismissal of claims presented in a prior petition; court lacks authority to authorize such filings	Denied — the court lacks jurisdiction under AEDPA to authorize filing of a petition that does not meet §2244(b)(2) exceptions
Whether the court can ignore AEDPA and adjudicate the claim under its constitutional jurisdiction (as-applied challenge)	Chades: §2244(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied because she was deprived of effective post-conviction counsel	Respondent: Felker and subsequent precedent accept AEDPA’s successive-petition limits; statute regulates repetitious petitions and does not suspend the writ	Court declined to exercise constitutional jurisdiction and rejected setting aside §2244; relied on Felker and related precedent
Whether the panel should treat the filing as an original habeas petition and transfer it to the district court	Chades: transfer would allow the district court to consider her due-process claim	Respondent: transfer would be futile because district courts lack jurisdiction over successive petitions absent circuit authorization	Court refused to transfer, concluding district court would be without power to entertain the successive petition
Whether Chades’s state-court merits ruling (and AEDPA deference) defeats her as-applied attack	Chades: new evidence shows prejudice from trial counsel’s failure; post-conviction counsel’s failures prejudiced her	Respondent: State court reasonably found no prejudice; if underlying claim lacks merit then post-conviction counsel cannot be shown prejudicially ineffective	Concurring judge: even on the merits the state-court conclusion was reasonable; therefore Chades cannot show prejudice or succeed in as-applied challenge; concurrence agrees in judgment

Key Cases Cited

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (upholding AEDPA’s successive-petition restrictions against Suspension Clause attack)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (court lacks authority under AEDPA to authorize successive petitions that do not meet statutory exceptions)
In re Bowles, 935 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2019) (AEDPA strips district courts of jurisdiction to hear successive claims without appellate authorization)
Bannister v. Bowersox, 128 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejecting argument that §2244(b)(1) denies a judicial forum for colorable constitutional claims)
Alley v. Bell, 392 F.3d 822 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding Suspension Clause can accommodate AEDPA’s limits)
Zimmerman v. Spears, 565 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977) (addressing appellate transfer of habeas petitions)
Arreola-Arreola v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court jurisdiction considerations for transferred petitions)