Goldstein
Goldstein v. Harris
Opinion
Lead Opinion
ORDER *
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, affirm the district court’s grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Thomas L. Gold-stein, and order his release from custody.
I. Goldstein’s claims are not procedurally barred.
We previously issued to Goldstein a certification to file a second or successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). He was not required to obtain further authorization to refile his fully exhausted petition after the district court granted him leave to pursue his unexhausted state claims. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 644-45 , 118 S.Ct. 1618 , 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998).
Goldstein’s habeas claims are not barred by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) because he brought each of his claims within one year of “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D). Nor does Goldstein seek any “new rule” of constitutional criminal procedure barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).