holding that § 2244(b)(1)’s prohibition on claims in a second or successive petition that were not MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES 15 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA
How later courts described this case
- holding that § 2244(b)(1)’s prohibition on claims in a second or successive petition that were not MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES 15 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA
- revisiting the §2244(b)(1) analysis after concluding that statements from two published prior cases were unreasoned dicta
- concluding “that § 2244(b)(1) does not apply to federal prisoners . . . seeking relief under § 2255”
- “[D]ictum in a prior decision . . . does not bind future panels.” (quoting In re Campbell, 874 F.3d 454, 464 (6th Cir. 2017))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in Judge Moore's comprehensive and complex opinion in this case written after and in light of the court's en banc opinion in United States v. Burris , 912 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2019). But at the same time I continue to agree with my dissenting opinion when our panel heard the case initially in 2017. Williams v. United States , 875 F.3d 803 , 809 (6th Cir. 2017). In that dissenting opinion, I concluded that United States v. Anderson , 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (now apparently rejected in Burris ), was no longer applicable in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Mathis v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2243 , 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).
Perhaps the Armed Career Criminal Act will someday be repealed.
In the last paragraph of my dissenting opinion two years ago, I pointed out what the two justices thought about this law. "Justice Breyer said, the Armed Career Criminal Act creates a 'time-consuming legal tangle.' Mathis , 136 S. Ct. at 2264 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Justice Alito agreed and referred to the analytical process simply as a 'mess.' Id . at 2269 (Alito, J., dissenting)."