Erick Wanjiku was convicted in 2022 by an Oklahoma jury of domestic assault and battery by strangulation and sentenced to three years in prison. After serving his sentence in 2023, he was transferred to federal custody and convicted of assaulting federal officers, for which he is currently serving a separate three-year term. Wanjiku has previously challenged his state convictions through several applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He now seeks authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file another such application, raising claims of judicial bias, errors, misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence. The core dispute is whether these new claims satisfy the rigorous gatekeeping requirements for second or successive habeas petitions.
The Tenth Circuit applied the strict standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) and the Supreme Court's decision in Banister v. Davis. Under these rules, a federal court may authorize a second or successive habeas claim only if it falls within one of two narrow categories: it must rely on a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law, or it must allege previously undiscoverable facts that would establish the prisoner's innocence. The court reviewed Wanjiku's motion and found that his claims regarding judicial bias, ineffective assistance, and insufficient evidence did not fit either category. Crucially, the court noted that Wanjiku's own motion acknowledged that his claims did not rely on a new rule of constitutional law or evidence of innocence. Because the movant conceded that his claims failed to meet the statutory requirements, the court had no discretion to grant authorization.
Wanjiku is barred from filing a second or successive habeas petition in the Tenth Circuit based on the claims he raised. The order explicitly states that this denial is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a petition for rehearing or a writ of certiorari. This decision reinforces the high bar for successive petitions, ensuring that prisoners cannot bypass the finality of judgments without meeting the specific, narrow exceptions for new constitutional rules or actual innocence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download