Summary
The Ninth Circuit denied in part Jesse Stephen King's application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence. It denied the parole-related claims as unnecessary and transferred those claims to the Eastern District of California for processing as a motion to amend King's pending habeas petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether King made the prima facie showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) to obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition challenging his conviction and sentence.
- Whether authorization was necessary for King's parole-related claims when a § 2254 petition challenging the same 2021 parole decision was already pending in the district court.
- Whether the parole-related claims should be transferred to the district court for processing as a motion to amend the pending petition.
Holdings
- Authorization was denied because King failed to make a prima facie showing that his claims satisfied either statutory pathway under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2): reliance on a previously unavailable, retroactive new rule of constitutional law, or newly discoverable facts establishing by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty absent constitutional error.
- The parole-related portion of the application was denied as unnecessary because King already had a § 2254 petition challenging the Board's 2021 parole decision pending in the district court.
- The clerk was directed to transfer the parole-related portion of the application to the Eastern District of California to be processed as a motion to amend the pending § 2254 petition, with the motion deemed filed on July 27, 2025.
Factual background
King sought to challenge both his criminal judgment and the California Board of Parole Hearings' decision denying him parole. His parole-related claims concerned the Board's 2021 decision, which was already being challenged in a pending § 2254 petition in the Eastern District of California. The application was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding on July 27, 2025.
Procedural history
King applied for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. The Ninth Circuit denied authorization as to claims challenging his conviction and sentence because he failed to make the required prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The court denied the parole-related portion as unnecessary because a § 2254 petition challenging the Board's 2021 decision was already pending in the Eastern District of California, and transferred that portion to the district court to be processed as a motion to amend. The court deemed the motion filed on July 27, 2025, and denied pending motions as moot.
Remand instructions
The clerk must transfer only the portion of the application alleging claims relating to the denial of parole to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, where it is to be processed as a motion to amend the pending § 2254 petition. The Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion on whether leave to amend should be granted.