Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.
Title 28, United States Code § 2254, provides that a state prisoner may present a claim in federal court that the person’s custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. However, a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under § 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through due diligence, or the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to show that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before a second of successive application permitted by § 2244(b) may be filed in the district court, the applicant must obtain from the court of appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
Danny Richard Rivers was convicted in 2012 by a Texas state court of sexual abuse of a child and possessing child pornography. His state direct appeal and state habeas relief were denied, and he filed his first federal habeas petition under § 2254 in August 2017. The federal district court denied the petition in September 2018. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Rivers’ request for a certificate of appealability in July 2020 with respect to his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. (p. 2).
While his appeal was pending in the Fifth Circuit, Rivers discovered what he determined was exculpatory information in his trial counsel’s file and asked the Fifth Circuit to supplement the record with the new information. The Fifth Circuit denied the request. Rivers then asked the Fifth Circuit to stay the appeal or remand the case to the district court to allow him to present the new evidence. The Fifth Circuit rejected the stay-or-remand request. (pp. 2-3).
Rivers then filed a second § 2254 petition in the district court, which included a claim related to the newly discovered evidence. The district court determined the petition was “second or successive” for purposes of § 2244(b)(2) and transferred the filing to the Fifth Circuit to determine whether Rivers met one of the criteria to file a second or successive application. Rivers appealed the district court’s transfer order, arguing that the filing was not a second or successive habeas petition because the first petition was still pending on appeal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s transfer order, and SCOTUS granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split whether a second habeas filing is “second or successive” when an appeal from the first petition is pending. (pp. 3-4).
A unanimous Court held that once judgment has been entered with respect to the initial habeas petition in the district court, “a second-in-time filing that makes new habeas claims generally qualifies as a second or successive petition for § 2244(b) purposes.” (p. 12).
