“It is now understood that a federal habeas 12 petition is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of the 13 initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the initial 14 petition. . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “It is now understood that a federal habeas 12 petition is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of the 13 initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the initial 14 petition. . . .”
- “It is now understood that a federal habeas 13 petition is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of the 14 initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the initial 15 petition. . . .”
- “It is now understood that a federal habeas petition 15 is second or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of 16 the initial petition, . . . and if the petition challenges the same state court 17 judgment as the initial petition. . . .”
- “It is now understood that a federal habeas petition is second 12 or successive if the facts underlying the claim occurred by the time of the initial petition, . . . and 13 if the petition challenges the same state court judgment as the initial petition. . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.