# Magwood v. Patterson

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 320

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435817

## Case

- **Full name:** MAGWOOD v. PATTERSON, WARDEN, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 561 U.S. 320; 130 S. Ct. 2788; 177 L. Ed. 2d 592; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breyer
- **Judges:** Thomas, Scalia, Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, Soto-Mayor, Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, Alito
- **Cited by:** 940 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Alonzo Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (2013).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435817

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “where . . . there is a ‘new judgment intervening 22 23 1 That matter remains pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. USCA Case No. 14-99009 1 between the two habeas petitions,’ [the petition] challenging the resulting new judgment is not 2 ‘secon…
- recognizing exception when “there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions,’” and reasoning that “an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not ‘second or successive’ at all” (quoting Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007))
- holding that a second 3 habeas petition challenging an intervening judgment imposed after resentencing was not 4 “second or successive” under the AEDPA, where the first habeas petition was filed prior 5 to resentencing and challenged the original judgment
- concluding that, “where .. . there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions,’ . . . an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not ‘second or successive’ at all” (quoting Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007))
- explaining that "[t]his case gives us no occasion to address" whether a petitioner who has received a new sentence may "file a subsequent application challenging not only his resulting, new sentence, but also his original, undisturbed conviction"

## Opinion text

Justice Breyer,
with whom
Justice Stevens and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join the Court’s well-reasoned opinion with the exception of Part IV-B. The Court neither purports to alter nor does alter our holding in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U. S. 930 (2007). See ante, at 335, n. 11. In Panetti , we “declined to interpret ‘second or successive’ as referring to all §2254 applications filed second or successively in time, even when the later filings address a state-court judgment already challenged in a prior §2251 application.” 551 U. S., at 944 (emphasis added). In this case, by contrast, we determine how 28 U. S. C. § 2244 (b) applies to a habeas petition that is the first petition to address a new “state-court judgment” that has not “already [been] challenged in a prior § 2254 application.” And, for the reasons provided by the Court, such a “first” petition is not “second or successive.” Of course, as the dissent correctly states, if Magwood were challenging an undisturbed state-court judgment for the second time, abuse-of-the-writ principles would apply, including Panetti’s holding that an “application” containing a “claim” that “the petitioner had no fair opportunity to raise” in his first habeas petition is not a “second or successive” application. Post, at 346 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, post, at 349-350, the Court’s decision today and our decision in Panetti fit comfortably together.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435817. Public record. Not legal advice.