Quintin Morris v. Rick Hill

MEMORANDUM

Quintín Morris appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing it without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Morris’ petition as a “second or successive” habeas petition filed without the authorization of the court of appeals, as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(8)(A). Morris does not dispute that his petition failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). Rather, he contends that because he alleges a freestanding actual innocence claim, AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive petitions are unconstitutional as applied to him.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has determined whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence is cognizable on federal habeas review, although each court has assumed without deciding that such a claim is viable. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1931 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013) (“We have not resolved whether a prisoner may be entitled to habeas relief based on a freestanding claim of…