Paul Cox, Jr. v. Karen Powers

Good Law
525 F. App'x 541
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 201311-56954California804 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Paul Cox, Jr. (“Cox”) was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life in state prison. Cox’s direct appeal and first federal habeas petition were unsuccessful. We then granted Cox leave to file a second or successive federal habeas petition in the district court asserting a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence. The district court dismissed Cox’s second petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. The standard for filing a second or successive habeas petition is set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(B), which provides in relevant part that:

“Before filing a successive petition in the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3) requires [a petitioner] to make a ‘prima facie showing’ to this court that his petition would satisfy section 2244(b)(2).” Woratzeck v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam); see also Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 , 118 S.Ct. 1618 , 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998). A “prima facie showing” in this Court is “a sufficient showing of 'possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court.” Cooper v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 1117,…

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.