Gage v. Chappell, No. 13-73438 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter, applied for permission to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, seeking to bring a Brady
claim and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court concluded that United States v. Buenrostro forecloses petitioner's argument that his new petition is not “second or successive," where the factual predicate of petitioner's claim could have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. The also court concluded that petitioner cannot make out a prima facie case of satisfying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), because he did not exercise due diligence by failing to include the Brady claim in his original petition. Further, the actual innocence exception articulated in Schlup v. Delo does not abrogate section 2244(b)(2)(B). Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel denied California prisoner George Gage’s application for permission to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in a case in which Gage, who was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter, sought to bring a Brady claim and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, neither of which was included in his first federal habeas petition. The panel held that Gage’s argument that his new petition is not “second or successive” within the meaning of the AEDPA is foreclosed by United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2011), because the factual predicates for his claims existed at the time of his first petition. The panel held that Gage is barred from bringing a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B) because he failed to exercise due diligence by failing to include the Brady claim in his original petition, and that the actual innocence exception articulated in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), does not abrogate § 2244(b)(2)(B). GAGE V. CHAPPELL 3
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.