The question
Whether a second-in-time federal habeas petition filed after the district court has entered judgment on the first petition, but while that first petition is on appeal, qualifies as a "second or successive" application subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Rivers v. Guerrero
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit. Once a district court enters judgment on a first-filed habeas petition, a later second-in-time filing counts as a "second or successive application" and must meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), including advance authorization from the court of appeals. Whether a filing is second or successive turns on the existence of a final judgment on the first petition, not on whether an appeal from that judgment is still pending. Rivers's second petition, filed after his first was denied, was therefore properly transferred to the Fifth Circuit for authorization.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Writing for a unanimous Court, Jackson held that the phrase second or successive habeas corpus application is a term of art keyed to the existence of a final judgment on the first petition rather than to whether all habeas filings simply come second in time. Once the district court enters judgment on a first-filed petition, a later filing is second or successive and must satisfy § 2244(b), including the requirement to obtain authorization from the court of appeals before proceeding in the district court. The pendency of an appeal from the first judgment does not change that result. The Court also found it had jurisdiction: Rivers retained appellate standing to challenge the transfer order, and his continued incarceration on related sexual-abuse sentences preserved habeas jurisdiction.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that once a district court enters judgment on a first-filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a second or successive application subject to § 2244(b).
Source: syllabus, Held
Whether a filing is second or successive turns on the existence of a final judgment on the first petition, not the status of any appeal from that judgment.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The Court held it had jurisdiction because Rivers retained appellate standing to challenge the transfer order and remained incarcerated on related sexual-abuse sentences.
Source: syllabus, Held
A petitioner cannot bring a second or successive habeas application directly to the district court but must first obtain a prima facie showing before the court of appeals under § 2244(b)(2).
Source: syllabus, Held