Bowe v. United States · ¶158
Statutory structure and history, too, have something to say. Before AEDPA, separate provisions addressed do-over claims by state prisoners and federal prisoners. Back then, §2244 permitted (but did not require) a court to deny relief to a state prisoner who “present[ed] no new ground not heretofore presented and determined” in a prior application. 28 U. S. C. §2244(a) (1988 ed.); 62 Stat. 965– 966. Similarly, §2255 said that a court “shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief ” by a federal prisoner. See 28 U. S. C. §2255 (1988 ed.). In AEDPA, Congress amended both provisions. Now, §2255(h) channels second or successive §2255 motions through the §2244 rules applicable to state prisoners. And AEDPA added to §2244 a new mandatory (no longer permissive) bar against do-over claims, flatly directing that they “shall be dismissed.” §2244(b)(1); 110…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.