Turner

Turner v. Terhune

Good Law
78 F. App'x 29
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 2003No. 00-56936California1,141 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Tracy Turner appeals the district court’s decision to deny his current habeas corpus petition as untimely. We reverse and remand with instructions that the district court consider Turner’s claims. The facts of this case are familiar to the parties and we recite them here only to the extent necessary.

I. Successive Petitions under AEDPA.

Turner filed two petitions in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 before filing the current petition from which he appeals. Under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a petitioner is required to receive authorization from the appellate court before filing a successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). The bar of successive petitions applies only to petitions adjudicated and denied on the merits in the previous federal habeas corpus proceeding. Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 645 , 118 S.Ct. 1618 , 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998). Since Turner’s claims were not adjudicated and denied on the merits, the current petition does not come within the statutory restrictions on successive applications. See id.

Turner’s first petition was dismissed for failure to name…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.