In Re: Pedro Medina

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• appearing to assume that the presentation of a new legal claim constitutes presentation of a new claim
• affirming dismissal of claims as successive because the petitioner did not first file an application with the Eleventh Circuit
• applying AEDPA to a successive habeas application even though a first application had been filed before April 24, 1996 because the prisoner had not shown detrimental reliance on pre-AEDPA law
• rejecting a detrimental reliance argument because even “if Medina had known of the changes that AEDPA would make, he still would have filed his first application when he did, and he would not have included in it any of the claims he is attempting to raise now in a second application”
• section 2244 forecloses all successive-petition review of constitutional claims unrelated to guilt or innocence
• “[T]he plain 30 Case: 13-10702 Date Filed: 04/22/2013 Page: 31 of 69 terms of [the] exception make it clear that it is limited to claims going to whether the applicant is ‘guilty of the underlying offense.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).