Goodrum v. Busby, No. 13-55010 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of voluntary manslaughter, challenged the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as second or successive. The court held that when a petitioner files a new petition while his first petition remains pending, courts have uniformly held that the new petition cannot be deemed second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. The court left it to the district court to decide on remand whether the claims alleged in the December 2011 petition reflect permissible amendments to the claims alleged in the June 2007 petition. Petitioner is entitled to litigate the set of claims alleged in the June 2007 petition, including permissible amendments to those claims,under the standard applicable to first petitions.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of a habeas corpus petition, the panel held that the petition was not “second or successive,” and the petitioner was not required to meet the standard for obtaining relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The panel held that, just as a new petition filed in the district court while a first petition remains pending is not second or successive, a new petition filed in the court of appeals while a first petition remains pending also is not a second or successive petition subject to the stringent standard set forth in § 2244(b).
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.