David Lee Daniels II v. Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed David Lee Daniels II's third 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. The court held that the petition was second or successive because the Oklahoma Survivors Act resentencing denial was not a new judgment and newly published Virginia Tech research did not provide a previously undiscoverable factual predicate. The court declined to transfer the matter to the Tenth Circuit and denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. Because Daniels had previously litigated habeas petitions concerning the same state convictions and had not obtained authorization from the Tenth Circuit, the petition was second or successive and the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
2. Denial of an application for resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors Act did not constitute a new judgment for purposes of the successive-habeas rules because Daniels was challenging a state post-conviction procedure rather than the imposition of his conviction or sentence.
3. The 2024–2025 Virginia Tech research did not supply a newly discovered factual predicate for Daniels's ineffective-assistance claim because counsel could not have been deficient for failing to present a study that did not yet exist, and the underlying childhood-abuse and decision-making theory had long been available.
4. Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 was not in the interest of justice because Daniels's Survivors Act claims were not cognizable and therefore meritless, and no meritorious successive claim risked being lost through dismissal.
5. A certificate of appealability was denied because Daniels did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural ruling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Daniels's petition was second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it challenged the same underlying convictions and lacked authorization from the Tenth Circuit.
2. Whether denial of resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors Act constituted a new judgment that made the petition non-successive.
3. Whether newly published Virginia Tech research supplied a factual predicate that prevented Daniels's ineffective-assistance and other claims from being second or successive.
4. Whether the petition should be transferred to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 rather than dismissed.
5. Whether Daniels was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed