In re: Clinton Young, No. 14-51288 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseMovant, convicted of two capital murders, seeks authorization to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B). The court found that movant litigated the issue of whether the government withheld Brady evidence related to his codefendants' settlement offers in his first successive state habeas petition; even if the court found that movant's claim was not presented in a prior application, it would still require dismissal because it does not satisfy the materiality prong of section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii); evidence of inducements, threats to additional witnesses, and a codefendant's plea offer do not satisfy section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii); and newly discovered evidence that a codefendant shot one of the victims does not satisfy section 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) - (ii). Accordingly, the court denied the motion to file a successive petition and the motion for a stay of execution.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.