Dickinson v. State of Me.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-8057,96-8057 |
| Parties | Norman E. DICKINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Norman E. Dickinson on motion to file second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pro se.
Before SELYA, BOUDIN and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner has filed a motion to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Petitioner's first § 2254 petition , filed in 1992, was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner has since pursued various state remedies and now asserts that he has exhausted state remedies. 1 For the reasons stated in Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44 (2d Cir.1996), we conclude that in these circumstances petitioner's present § 2254 petition is not a second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Consequently, petitioner is not required to obtain permission from this court to file his present § 2254 petition in the district court.
We note that the district court struck petitioner's present § 2254 petition under the mistaken impression that petitioner had to obtain permission to file from this court before the district court could entertain the petition. As we have now determined that permission is not required because the earlier petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, petitioner may now refile his § 2254 petition in the district court.
1 We do not now decide whether he had in fact exhausted state remedies, see Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 92 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir.1996), or whether the claims petitioner seeks to present are meritorious.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabino v. Reno
... ... In the AEDPA Congress set up a gate keeping mechanism to control the submission of successive applications for habeas review of state court convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Felker, 116 S.Ct. at 2336-37. A prospective habeas applicant must file a motion for leave in the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Barrett
...is raising the same claims that he raised in the prior petition that was dismissed for lack of exhaustion); Dickinson v. Maine, 101 F.3d 791, 791 (1st Cir.1996) (per curiam); Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam) ("[A]pplication of the gatekeeping provisions to deny a......
-
Olvera v. Reno
... ... rational basis standard a statute is unconstitutional "only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective." McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). A statutory distinction will not be set aside if any ... ...
-
Berlanga v. Reno
... ... Even if this Court had jurisdiction, the Court would conclude that Petitioner has failed to state" a claim upon which relief may be granted and thus the Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED ... I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ... \xC2" ... ...