Bowe v. United States · ¶166

Fourth, the majority suggests that § 2255(h)'s cross- reference to § 2244 captures only the latter's “procedures” governing “how a panel certifes a second or successive filing.” Ante, at 37. And, the argument goes, § 2244(b)(1)'s bar on do-over claims is no mere “procedure” but instead a substantive rule about what a filing may “contai[n].” Ibid. This theory fails too. Section 2255's cross-reference does not speak of a procedure/substance distinction. Instead, §2255(h) directs courts to “certif[y]” motions “as provided in” § 2244. Even the majority acknowledges that this language makes § 2244(b)(3)(C) applicable to federal prisoners. Ante, at 29. And subparagraph (C) explicitly says “the requirements of this subsection”—which include § 2244(b)(1)— must be satisfied before certification. It's more than a little telling that the majority finds itself forced both to rewrite § 2255(h)'s…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.