In Re: William Gray, Jr., No. 16-433 (4th Cir. 2017)Annotate this Case
Movant sought leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition challenging his conviction for first-degree murder. The court found that when a prisoner's successful habeas petition results in a new, intervening judgment, the prisoner's first habeas petition to challenge that new judgment is not second or successive within the meaning of section 2244(b), regardless of whether the petition challenges the prisoner's sentence or underlying conviction. In this case, the petition is not second or successive because it will be the first to challenge the intervening judgment that was the basis for Movant's confinement. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to file a second or successive petition as unnecessary and directed the district court to consider Movant's second-in-time section 2254 petition as the first challenge to the new judgment.