Kinney v. State of Washington, 2:24-cv-01680

James Allen Kinney is incarcerated for a 2002 Washington state conviction of aggravated first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence without parole.
Kinney, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted his fourth federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming he acted as a special investigator for President Ronald Reagan during the relevant conduct.
Previously, Kinney filed three prior habeas petitions challenging the same conviction; his second was dismissed with prejudice as untimely and procedurally barred, and his third was dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition.
The court screened the current (fourth) petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases, prior to ordering service on the respondent, to determine jurisdiction and procedural compliance.
Kinney did not obtain the required authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive habeas petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fourth habeas petition is successive	Petition not successive due to new factual claims	Petition is successive, authorization required	Petition is successive; prior claims adjudicated
Whether Kinney's claims could have been earlier raised	Claims based on facts allegedly unknown before	Factual predicate was already known	Claims could have been raised in earlier petitions
Whether court has jurisdiction without Ninth Circuit authorization	Filing should be allowed regardless	No jurisdiction without authorization	No jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice
Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue	Substantial constitutional claim shown	Not warranted under facts or law	COA denied due to lack of debatable legal basis

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (Court can dismiss habeas petitions for being vague, conclusory, or frivolous)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (District courts lack jurisdiction over successive habeas petitions absent appellate authorization)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (Dismissal of claims with prejudice in earlier habeas triggers successive petition bar)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (Standards for issuing certificates of appealability after habeas dismissals)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (Criteria for COA: whether reasonable jurists could disagree on dismissal)
Steward v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (Successive petition rules apply to previously adjudicated claims)