Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Spotville v. Cain (ca5, 1998-08-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spotville v. Cain
5th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Habeas 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[.]” Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210, 211 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see" Edrick Jamar Dunn v. Jim Bob Darnell, et al.
N.D. Tex. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, to the extent he seeks release and attempts to challenge his state-court conviction, he cannot do so without first obtaining permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A); see Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210, 211 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited "see" Hallcy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
N.D. Tex. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210, 211 (Sth Cir. 1997) (holding that petitioners filing their Section 2254 petitions in federal district court after April 24, 1996, are subject to the “successive” provisions enacted by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996).
discussed Cited "see" Chadwick v. Graves
N.D. Iowa · 2000 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Vancleave v. Norris, 150 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)); accord Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 375 (5th Cir.1998) (“Habeas 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[.]’ ”) (quoting Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210, 211 (5th Cir.1997)); Lopez, 141 F.3d at 975 (“Since Petitioner filed his second § 2254 petition aft…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John A. MORAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Richard L. STALDER, Warden; Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees
96-30892.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 9, 1997.
121 F.3d 210
John A. Moran, Homer, LA, Pro Se., Val Michael Solino, New Orleans, LA, Jack C. Peebles, Metairie, LA, for RespondentsAppellees.
Jones, Demoss, Parker.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 63%
Citer courts: E.D. Louisiana (1)
[*211] 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 AED-PA 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, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (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 eases filed after the AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996. “[T]he new provisions of chapter 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 AED-PA’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.