Summary
This First Circuit opinion addresses whether a federal habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a "second or successive" application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) when the petitioner was represented by the same attorney throughout trial, direct appeal, and the initial habeas proceeding. Analyzing historical habeas doctrine and AEDPA's purposes, the court concludes that such a petition is indeed second or successive and subject to statutory restrictions. Consequently, the petitioner must obtain authorization from the circuit court before the district court can consider the new claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Anderson's second habeas petition is a "second or successive" application under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2).
Holdings
- The Court held that Anderson's petition is a "second or successive" habeas corpus application and therefore subject to dismissal under §2244(b)(2).
Factual background
Bruce Anderson killed his estranged wife in 1983, was convicted of first‑degree murder in 1989, and sentenced to life without parole. He previously filed a federal habeas petition that was denied. In 2019 he filed a second habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of the same attorney who represented him at trial, on direct appeal, and in the first habeas proceeding.
Procedural history
Anderson was convicted of first‑degree murder in Massachusetts and sentenced to life without parole. He filed a first habeas petition that was denied. In 2019 he filed a second habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed it as a "second or successive" petition. Anderson sought authorization from this Court to proceed; the Court denied the request, vacated the district court's denial, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Remand instructions
Dismiss the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2).