United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on initial review of Petitioner
Juan Bradley's (“Bradley”) Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. (Filing No. 1.) The court will
dismiss the petition because it is a second or successive
habeas corpus petition that has not been authorized by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
statutory prohibition against successive petitions by state
prisoners is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, which
provides in relevant part:
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed unless--
(A) 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, that was previously
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332-33 (2010),
the United States Supreme Court held that “the phrase
‘second or successive' must be interpreted with
respect to the judgment challenged.” In other words,
the phrase “second or successive” applies to
entire habeas petitions, and not to individual claims in
those petitions. Id.
court's records reflect that Bradley's petition is
successive. He challenges his 1981 conviction in the District
Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, for first degree felony
murder. Bradley unsuccessfully challenged this same
conviction under earlier federal habeas corpus litigation.
(See Bradley v. State of Nebraska, et al., Case No.
4:10CV3096, Filing No. 8 (petition for authorization to file
a successive habeas application denied); Bradley v.
Clarke, Case No. 4:93CV3312, Filing No. 9 (dismissing
petition); Bradley v. Hopkins, Case No. 8:92CV65,
Filing No. 10 (dismissing petition)).
pending petition is a second or successive petition under the
statute because it challenges the same judgment already
challenged in this court. Moreover, the petition does not fit
any of the recognized exceptions to the bar on second or
successive petitions. The record does not reflect that
Bradley has received permission from the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals to again attack this conviction. If he wishes to
continue to pursue this matter, he should file a motion with
the Eighth ...