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, fatly directing that they “shall be dismissed.” § 2244(b)(1);…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.