Flowers

MEMORANDUM

Howard William Flowers, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court dismissed Flowers’ second petition after concluding that it did not rely on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(A) (1994 & Supp. IV1998). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

On August 26,1997, we granted Flowers leave to file a second habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). The second petition alleged a violation of Flow *659 ers’ constitutional rights under Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 , 112 S.Ct. 1810 , 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992). The Supreme Court decided Riggins in 1992, several years after the denial of Flowers’s first habeas petition. Riggins holds that the forced administration of anti-psychotic drugs to a defendant during trial — without a determination by the court of overriding justification and medical appropriateness — is a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 135-38 , 112 S.Ct. 1810 .…