Burton v. Stewart
Headline: State prisoner’s second federal habeas petition is blocked for lack of required appeals-court permission, and the Court orders dismissal, tightening filing rules for prisoners who want new challenges to sentences.
Holding:
- Requires appeals-court permission before filing second federal habeas petitions.
- Dismisses unapproved second petitions for lack of federal court power to hear them.
- Leaves unresolved whether the specific Blakely sentencing rule is retroactive.
Summary
Background
A state prisoner, Lonnie Burton, was convicted in 1994 of rape, robbery, and burglary and received a very long sentence. The trial court entered amended judgments in 1996 and 1998 that left him serving the same 562‑month term. Burton filed a federal habeas petition in 1998 challenging his convictions, and after state courts rejected his sentencing challenges he filed a second federal petition in 2002 focused on his sentence and on the Court’s sentencing decisions.
Reasoning
The Court did not resolve whether the earlier sentencing decision (Blakely) announced a new rule or applies retroactively. Instead it addressed federal procedural law: under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act a prisoner must obtain permission from the federal court of appeals before filing a second habeas petition. Because Burton’s first federal petition was adjudicated on the merits, his 2002 filing was a second or successive challenge and he never sought the required appeals‑court authorization. The Court concluded the district court therefore had no power to consider the 2002 petition and ordered dismissal, vacating the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
Real world impact
The ruling makes clear that prisoners who have already received a merits decision on an earlier federal habeas petition cannot bring new federal claims attacking the same judgment without first getting permission from the court of appeals. The Court left unresolved whether the particular sentencing rule at issue applies retroactively, so that merits question remains for another case.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?