Background
Reginald Larue Spivey filed a self-styled Motion of Actual Innocent Claim. The district court construed this as a successive motion under Section twenty-eight of the United States Code, Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. Spivey sought to appeal this order.
The court’s reasoning
The court concluded Spivey did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. The motion was properly construed as a successive Section twenty-eight of the United States Code, Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five motion. Absent prefiling authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction.
What it means going forward
Prisoners must obtain prefiling authorization and a certificate of appealability to challenge successive habeas motions.