green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
47.5 score
“to justify this costly litigation strategy , be it deliberate choice, procedurally-constrained decision, or neglect, a petitioner must show cause for the omission and prejudice therefrom.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thiele v. Winkelman
s the supreme court has stated time and again, federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Goldblum v. Klem
to justify this costly litigation strategy , be it deliberate choice, procedurally-constrained decision, or neglect, a petitioner must show cause for the omission and prejudice therefrom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer v. Barajas
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A ‘ground’ is ‘sufficient legal basis for granting the relief sought[.]’” (quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 16 (1963))); see also Yamaguchi v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A dismissal for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of law . . . .” (emphasis added)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellison v. Shinn
Hicks thus “recognized that state laws which guarantee 12 a criminal defendant procedural rights at sentencing, even if not themselves 13 constitutionally required, may give rise to liberty interests protected against arbitrary 14 deprivation by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 15 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julio Cesar Gutierrez-Jaramillo v. United States
To 26 establish “cause” in the context of a successive claim, “a petitioner must show cause for 27 seeking review of the same claim twice – such as the discovery of new facts, or an 28 intervening change in the law, that warrants reexamination of the same ground for relief 1 raised in an earlier petition.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 Petitioner identifies no new facts, change in law, or other circumstances to support 3 reexamination of the same claims that already have been decided by other courts.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
O'NEAL v. Levi
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
In the context of successive habeas claims (as opposed to failure to raise the claims earlier), “cause” has been construed as meaning “cause for bringing a petition that fails to present a new ground for relief.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , *389 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); 8 see Rosales-Garda v. J.T.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Goldblum v. Klem
(2×)
See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 49 (1st Cir.1999) (holding that "[w]hether or not [petitioner's] failure to [include the claims in the first petition] was intentional is of no moment" under McCleskey ); Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115, 119 (5th Cir.1992) (finding petitioner abused the writ because he "should have known" about the legal theories he failed to advance in his first habeas petition); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 520 (9th Cir.1992) ("To justify this costly litigation strategy [of permitting second habeas petitions], be it deliberate choice, procedurally-constrained…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henderson v. Collins
In other words, a petitioner must show cause for seeking review of the same claim twice — such as the discovery of new facts, or an intervening change in the law, that warrants reexamination of the same ground for relief raised in an earlier petition.” Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 , 399 n. 15 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir. 1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tholmer v. Gomez
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mario Rosales-Garcia v. J.T. Holland, Warden, Reynero Arteaga Carballo v. Mark Luttrell, Warden Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
In other words, a petitioner must show cause for seeking review of the same claim twice — such as the discovery of new facts, or an intervening change in the law, that warrants reexamination of the same ground for relief raised in an earlier petition.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr. v. A.J. Arave, Warden
(2×)
However, we do not review for errors of state law, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994), and the constitution does not require us to look behind the Idaho Supreme Court's conclusion that Pizzuto's sentence was proportional to the sentences imposed in cases similar to his so long as he was not deprived of any review at all.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Owens
Ed. 2d 175 (1980) (holding that an instruction requiring the jury to sentence defendant to mandatory term violated the defendant’s right to due process of law because Oklahoma law entitled the, defendant to have the juiy determine his sentence). 19 Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 (1994). 20 See Jeffers v. Lewis, 38 F.3d 411, 415-16 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1071 (1995). 21 494 U.S. 738 , 110 S. Ct. 1441 , 108 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez High v. Turpin
Although foe Eleventh Circuit apparently has not addressed foe issue, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted cause in this context as requiring the petitioner to "show cause for seeking review of the same claim twice — such as foe discovery of new facts, or an intervening change in the law, that warrants reexamination of the same ground for relief raised in an earlier petition.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir.1992). 10 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Personal Restraint of Benn
After reviewing the facts before it, the court said, "we decline to find that the review was so inadequate that Rupe was essentially deprived of any review, and due process will not recognize a less egregious injury." Rupe, 93 F.3d at 1443 (citing Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re the Personal Restraint of Benn
After reviewing the facts before it, the court said, “we decline to find that the review was so inadequate that Rupe was essentially deprived of any review, and due process will not recognize a less egregious injury.” Rupe, 93 F.3d at 1443 (citing Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir. 1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arthur Payton
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for abuse of discretion, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir .1993), and affirm. 3 Payton contends that the district court erred by dismissing his second 2255 motion as an abuse of the writ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald M. PARADIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.J. ARAVE, Warden, Idaho State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
“The district court abuses its discretion if the court’s decision is based on ‘an erroneous legal conclusion or on a clearly erroneous finding of fact.’” Id. (quoting Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jospeh M. Wasko v. William Duncan, Warden
We review for an abuse of discretion, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm. 3 Wasko contends that the retroactive application of McCleskey to pending petitions is inherently unjust.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Felix GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul A. Redd, Jr. v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden
We review for an abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James L. Harris v. Theo White, Warden
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for an abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1993), and affirm. 3 A petition is successive and may be dismissed if it raises no grounds for relief that are new or different from the claims raised in an earlier petition, and the claims have been previously decided on the merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calvin L. Jones v. Ana M. Olivarez Attorney General of the State of California
We review for abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm. 3 A petitioner abuses the writ of habeas corpus if he raises a new claim in a subsequent habeas petition that he could have raised in his first habeas petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregory Mays
He argues that the instruction failed clearly and correctly to explain the requirement of a previous intent to commit a crime. "[A] different factual basis or argument asserted to support the same legal theory advanced previously does not constitute a new ground for relief." Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 515 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 16 (1963), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ernie R. Sanders
We review for abuse of discretion, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1993), and affirm. 3 Sanders' first section 2255 motion was filed and denied before the Supreme Court decided McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Jeffrey FARMER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. E.K. McDANIEL; Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellants
(2×)
See Hutchinson v. Craven, 415 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam); Tatum v. Christensen, 786 F.2d 959 , 964 n. 6 (9th Cir.1986), overruled in part on other grounds, 802 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc); Richmond v. Lewis, 948 F.2d 1473, 1480-81 (9th Cir.1990), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 40 , 113 S.Ct. 528 , 121 L.Ed.2d 411 (1992); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 515-17 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); Hill v. Lockhart, 894 F.2d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011 , 110 S.Ct. 3258 , 111 L.Ed.2d 76…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ceja v. Stewart
Thus, Ceja was constitutionally entitled to such a review. 3 Cf. Collins v. Francis, 728 F.2d 1322 (11th Cir.) (although proportionality review is not constitutionally mandated, once a state establishes a right to such review defendants have a constitutional right to have it conducted fairly), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992) (Washington law requiring the state supreme court to review each capital sentence imposed to determine whether the sentence of death was imposed through passion or prejudice created …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7448, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,269 Jose Jesus Ceja v. Terry Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent of Arizona State Prison
Thus, Ceja was constitutionally entitled to such a review. 3 Cf. Collins v. Francis, 728 F.2d 1322 (11th Cir.) (although proportionality review is not constitutionally mandated, once a state establishes a right to such review defendants have a constitutional right to have it conducted fairly), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992) (Washington law requiring the state supreme court to review each capital sentence imposed to determine whether the sentence of death was imposed through passion or prejudice created …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Randy A. Myers v. James H. Gomez, Warden Attorney General of the State of California
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal of Myers's petition, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and affirm. 1 3 Myers contends that because he filed his initial petition prior to McCleskey and because then-existing precedent permitted new petitions containing claims that were not previously raised, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his second section 2254 petition as an abuse of the writ. 4 A petitioner must show cause for failing to previously raise new claims, and prejudice resultin…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rupe v. Wood
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6089, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9969 Mitchell Edward Rupe, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Tana Wood, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994). 47 Rupe also argues that Wood is collaterally estopped from defending the proportionality review scheme because Washington did not appeal the part of the Harris decision holding that Harris' proportionality review violated his due process rights.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Patrick Rawlins v. Samuel Lewis
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert A. Sorensen v. Michael Mahoney
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Keith Daniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Eugene Kukes v. Arthur Calderon, Warden Attorney General, State of California
We review for abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and affirm. 3 A petitioner abuses the writ of habeas corpus if he raises a new claim in a subsequent habeas petition that he could have raised in his first habeas petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1320, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2038 William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, (Two Cases). William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, Warden
See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-69 , 112 S.Ct. 475, 480 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 18 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.1991); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonin v. Calderon
See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-69 , 112 S.Ct. 475, 480 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 18 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.1991); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Edward Evanson
We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a section 2255 motion as successive, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion, Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klvana v. State of Cal.
McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 487-91 , 111 S.Ct. at 1466-69 ; Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 515-16 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1511 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910 , 112 S.Ct. 1275 , 117 L.Ed.2d 501 (1992); see 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 9(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Concepcion Garcia, United States of America v. Jose Concepcion Garcia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for an abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and affirm. 3 A petitioner abuses the writ of habeas corpus if he raises a new claim in a subsequent habeas petition that he could have raised in his first habeas petition.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Mellinger, Petitioner-Appellant,. v. Richard H. Rison, Warden, United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, and State of Hawaii, Daniel Mellinger v. State of Hawaii John Sullivan, Warden, Usp Lompoc
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arthur William Mack
We review for abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and affirm. 3 A section 2255 motion may be dismissed as successive if it presents the same ground previously determined on its merits adversely to petitioner and the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the successive motion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fearance v. Scott
We do not mean to imply that we accept the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir.1993). 11 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma
(2×)
Cf. Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522-25 (9th Cir.1992) (reviewing a petitioner's claim that the State of Washington deprived him of procedural due process because, although the state supreme court conducted a mandatory proportionality review of his death sentence, the court did so in an inadequate manner), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Allan Moran v. Salvador Godinez, Warden
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cf. Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522 (9th Cir.1992), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 18 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994); Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1297 (9th Cir.1993). 68 Moran also argues that because the post-convictionn court failed to consider his claim that he was incompetent to discharge his counsel, it failed to cure the Pate violation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan Peder McKenzie Jr. v. Rick Day, Director, Department of Corrections and Human Services
(2×)
Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 515-16 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1337 , 127 L.Ed.2d 685 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lackey v. Scott
(2×)
In Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 524 (9th Cir.1993), the Court of Appeals wrote: To justify review of a successive claim, we must construe “cause” to also mean cause for bringing a petition that fails to present a new ground for relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ralph C. Hamm, III v. Paul Murphy, Superintendent
For the same reason, we likewise need not decide the appropriate standard under which to review abuse of the writ decisions in the wake of McCleskey-whether to continue applying an abuse of discretion standard, see, e.g., Nachtigall v. Class, ___ F.3d ___, 1995 WL 82882, at * 2 (8th Cir. 1995); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1337 (1994), or to adopt a de novo standard of review, see Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1311-13 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1122 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael C. Davis v. Jerry Stainer, Warden Dan Lungren, Attorney General for the State of California
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We review for an abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994), and affirm. 3 A petitioner abuses the writ of habeas corpus if he raises a new claim in a subsequent habeas petition that he could have raised in his first habeas petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Parnell Colvin
We review for abuse of discretion, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), and we vacate and remand. 3 The instant section 2255 raised one issue: whether the district court denied Colvin due process by calculating his base offense level based on the total amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy rather than the amount reasonably foreseeable to Colvin, as required by U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, commentary n. 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank R. Borders v. Janet Barbour, Superintendent
This contention lacks merit. 5 We review the district court's dismissal of abusive habeas claims for abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1337 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frederick LASHLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Paul K. DELO, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Paul K. DELO, Defendant-Appellee
93-2892.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 27, 1993.
Cedric D. Brown, Kansas City, MO, for plaintiff-appellant., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, MO, for defendant-appellee.
Arnold, Fagg, Beam.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (1)
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.
The motion for stay of execution is denied. See Delo v. Blair, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2922, - L.Ed.2d - (1993).
IT IS SO ORDERED.