Greenawalt v. Stewart, 97-99002
| Decision Date | 22 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-99002,97-99002 |
| Citation | 105 F.3d 1287 |
| Parties | 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 721, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1119 Randy GREENAWALT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Denise I. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner-appellant.
Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-0135-PHX-SMM.
Before: WALLACE, ALARCON, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
On January 22, 1997, Petitioner Randy Greenawalt filed a notice of appeal from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and filed a motion for a stay of execution. It is clear that Greenawalt is attempting to avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to § 2241. The Supreme Court has instructed us that the authority of the federal courts to grant habeas relief to state prisoners under § 2241 is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Felker v. Turpin, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2339-40, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996). We, therefore, treat Greenawalt's notice of appeal as an application for an order authorizing the district court to consider his successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 1
On April 24, 1996, the President signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217-26 (1996) ("the 1996 Act"), which placed new limitations on the presentation of a successive claim. Under the 1996 Act, section 2244(b)(2) now requires the dismissal of a successive petition unless:
[ (1) ] the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; [or (2) ] the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence [and] the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) & (2).
Greenawalt alleges in his successive petition that the execution of a person convicted of murder in the first degree by lethal injection violates his federal constitutional rights.
On January 21, 1997, the Arizona Supreme Court denied Greenawalt's petition for review and for special action. Greenawalt now seeks review by the district court of his successive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keen v. State
...66 S.W.3d at 822 (Barker, J., dissenting) (citing Hope v. United States, 108 F.3d 119, 120 (7th Cir.1997) and Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287–88 (9th Cir.1997)). Justice Barker's separate opinion cites with favor Judge Richard Posner's opinion in Hope v. United States, in which J......
-
White v. Lambert
...v. Stewart, the petitioner, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of his execution, sought habeas relief under § 2241. 105 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). Although the petitioner relied on § 2241, we analyzed whether the petition was a second or successive one under § 2244(b)(3)......
-
In re Wright
...826, 827 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 2241 may not be used to evade the requirements of § 2254.”) (citing Greenawalt v. Stewart , 105 F.3d 1287, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that § 2241 could not be used to circumvent the limitation on second or successive § 2254 petitions)).Indeed, the Te......
-
Wright v. Angelone
...the basis of newly discovered evidence unless the motion challenges the conviction and not merely the sentence"); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287-88 (9th Cir.1997). ...