Chades v. Hill

Summary

The Ninth Circuit denied Karen Chades's application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, holding that it lacked authority to authorize the petition because her claim (ineffective assistance of trial counsel) had been presented in a prior application and did not meet any statutory exception. The court rejected her argument that AEDPA's restrictions on successive petitions are unconstitutional as applied, citing *Felker v. Turpin* for the proposition that the statute does not suspend the writ but merely regulates repetitious requests for relief. The concurrence noted that the court lacked jurisdiction under § 2244(b)(3) because the petition did not seek to present a new claim under § 2244(b)(2), and declined to transfer the petition to the district court.

Holdings

1. The court has no authority under AEDPA to authorize the application because the claim was presented in a prior application and does not meet the statutory exceptions under § 2244(b)(2).
2. The court declines to set aside the strictures of § 2244 because the statute does not impermissibly preclude judicial review but rather acts as a mere regulation of repetitious requests for relief.
3. Regardless of whether transfer is properly done by a panel or an individual judge, each member of the panel declines to transfer here.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court has authority under AEDPA to authorize a second or successive habeas corpus application when the claim was presented in a prior application and does not meet the statutory exceptions.
2. Whether the court can entertain the request directly under the Constitution despite the statutory bar.
3. Whether a single member of the panel can construe the request as a habeas corpus application and transfer it to a district court.

Disposition

dismissed