10th Cir.

In re MAURICE B. MOORE

March 5, 2026 ·5:00-CV-03146-DES ·Panel Decision · By James Taylor

The Tenth Circuit denied Maurice Moore's application to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition because he failed to meet the strict statutory requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court held that Moore's claims did not rely on a new retroactive rule of constitutional law nor did they present previously undiscoverable facts establishing actual innocence.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:16

Maurice Moore was originally convicted in Kansas state court in 1986 for aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer and unlawful possession of a firearm. Ten years later, a state court vacated those convictions, finding his guilty plea had been improperly accepted. In 1997, Moore pled guilty again to similar charges, including a concealed weapons offense, and received an indeterminate sentence of thirty years to life. While serving this sentence, Moore filed a habeas corpus application in 2001. Now, proceeding pro se, he seeks authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file another habeas application challenging the state court's jurisdiction over him in the original 1986 proceedings.

The court applied the strict gatekeeping requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which generally bars second or successive habeas petitions unless they fall into one of two narrow exceptions. As established in Banister v. Davis, a petitioner must show that their claim relies on either a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law or previously undiscoverable facts that would establish actual innocence. Moore argued that he could not have discovered the evidence earlier because the Saline County district attorney and his public defender conspired to suppress it, and he lacked knowledge of the relevant law. The court rejected this argument, finding that Moore's assertions did not satisfy either statutory category. His claims did not rely on a new rule of constitutional law, nor did they present evidence of innocence that was previously undiscoverable. Consequently, the court denied the motion for authorization.

The denial of authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition is final and binding. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), this order is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a petition for rehearing or a writ of certiorari. Moore remains subject to his 1997 sentence, and the court has left no open questions regarding the jurisdictional challenge he attempted to raise.

Play