Felker v. Turpin

1. The Act does not preclude this Court from entertaining an application for habeas corpus relief, although it does affect the standards governing the granting of such relief. 2. The Act does not violate the Constitution's Suspension Clause, Art. I, § 9, U. 2, which provides that "[tihe Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended." The new restrictions on successive habeas petitions constitute a modified res judicata rule, a restraint on what is called in habeas practice "abuse of the writ." The doctrine of abuse of the writ refers to a complex and evolving body of equitable principles informed and controlled by historical usage, statutory developments, and judicial decisions. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 489. The new restrictions are well within the compass of this evolutionary process and do not amount to a "suspension" of the writ. 3. The petition for an original writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner's claims do not satisfy the § 2244(b)(2) requirements, let alone this Court's Rule 20.4(a), which requires that the habeas petitioner show "exceptional circumstances" justifying the issuance of the writ and says that habeas relief is rarely granted. Petitioner's claims here do not materially differ from numerous other claims made by sucdessive habeas petitioners that the Court has had occasion'to review on stay applications. 664-665. Certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction; writ of habeas corpus denied.

Result

Dismissed

The Court viewed the limits on repeat filings as part of long-used rules against misuse of habeas petitions, not as a suspension of the right to seek relief. It also said Felker's claims failed the law's requirements and the Court's rule requiring exceptional circumstances for an original petition.

The Court's denial resolved Felker's original habeas request, and the decision identifies no further step in his case. The Act's limits on second or later petitions remain in place.