Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-30892
Summary Calendar.
John A. MORAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Richard L. STALDER, Warden; Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General,
State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.
Sept. 8, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition filed by
petitioner-appellant John A. Moran ("Moran") in the district court
in February 1995, before the effective date of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. 104-132,
110 Stat. 1214. The district court decided that the petitioner was
subject to the successive habeas provisions enacted by the AEDPA
that appear at 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and dismissed the habeas petition
pending appropriate certification by this court as provided for in
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), as amended by the AEDPA.
In Lindh v. Murphy, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2059, --- L.Ed.2d
---- (1997), the Supreme Court held that the AEDPA's amendments to
the chapter of title 28 which includes, inter alia, the successive
habeas provisions, apply only to cases filed after the AEDPA's
effective date of April 24, 1996. "[T]he new provisions of chapter
1

153 generally apply only to cases filed after the Act became
effective." Id., --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2067-68.
Following Lindh, we hold that § 2254 petitioners presenting a
second or successive § 2254 habeas petition are not subject to the
new successive habeas provisions unless their successive petitions
were filed in the district court after the AEDPA's effective date
of April 24, 1996. See United States v. Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264
& n. 1 (5th Cir.1997).
Because Moran's successive petition was filed in the district
court prior to the AEDPA's effective date, his petition is not
subject to the AEDPA's successive habeas provisions. Consequently,
we must reverse and remand so that the district court may consider
Moran's petition under pre-AEDPA standards.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

2