Michael Shane Ragland v. United States

Before a federal prisoner can seek relief in a second or successive habeas application in the district court, they must move in “the appropriate court of appeals,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), for “an order authorizing the district court to consider [their] application,” id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals grants that authorization if the petitioner makes “a prima facie showing” that their “application” “contain[s]” either newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by this Court. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255(h). Once the court of appeals certifies that these gatekeeping requirements are met, the statute permits the district court to consider the habeas petitioner’s “application.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). The question presented is: Whether a district court’s jurisdiction over a second or successive habeas application by a federal prisoner is limited to the specific “claim” certified by the court of appeals, as the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits hold, or whether it embraces the entire “application,” as the statute’s text provides and as five circuits—the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth—hold.