Rivers v. Guerrero
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Rivers v. Guerrero and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Rivers v. Guerrero.
In Rivers v. Guerrero, the Supreme Court addressed whether a second habeas petition filed while the first was on appeal qualifies as a 'second or successive' application under AEDPA. The Court affirmed that such filings are subject to § 2244(b) requirements once a district court enters judgment on the first petition. The decision emphasizes the procedural limitations imposed on successive habeas petitions to prevent piecemeal litigation.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Rivers v. Guerrero.
The Court held that once a district court enters its judgment on a first-filed habeas petition, any subsequent filing qualifies as a 'second or successive application' under § 2244(b).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Rivers v. Guerrero. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Rivers v. Guerrero
The case involves procedural requirements for filing successive habeas petitions under AEDPA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)AEDPA contains several significant procedural barriers that strictly limit a court's ability to hear 'claim[s] presented' in any 'second or successive habeas corpus application.'
-
Why Standing is relevant to Rivers v. Guerrero
The Court discusses Rivers's standing to appeal based on the potential redress of his injury.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Rivers has appellate standing with respect to that legal claim.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Rivers v. Guerrero
The Court exercises its power to review the procedural handling of Rivers's habeas petition.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court has jurisdiction to review this dispute.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Rivers v. Guerrero that support the summary and concepts above.
"Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a frst-fled habeas petition, a second-in-time fling qualifes as a 'second or successive application.'"
"Section 2244(b)'s restrictions aim to conserve judicial resources, reduce piecemeal litigation, and lend fnality to state-court judgments within a reasonable time."
"The phrase 'second or successive habeas corpus application' in § 2244(b)(2) is a 'term of art' that does not refer to all habeas flings made second in time following an initial application."
