United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RANDOLPH D. MOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
review of Pearson's pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
see Dkt. 1, and the United States' response,
see Dkt. 12, the Court has determined that the
petition, properly construed, falls under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. See Dkt. 5 at 3. Before the Court construes
the petition as arising under § 2254, however, it must
inform Pearson of some of the consequences that may result
from this characterization and give him an opportunity to
withdraw or to amend his motion. Pending Pearson's
decision, which must be communicated to the Court on or
before November 3, 2016, the Court will hold further
proceedings in abeyance.
Court advises Pearson of the following restrictions on claims
brought under § 2254:
all claims brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be
brought in a single motion.
a second or successive § 2254 motion is filed in
district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit must authorize the district court to
consider the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
More specifically, petitioner is advised that:
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed unless-
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3) (A) Before a second or successive application permitted
by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing
the district court to consider a second or successive
application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the
court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second
or successive application only if it determines that the
application makes a prima facie showing that the application
satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the
authorization to file a second or successive application not
later than 30 ...