Whether a court of appeals can reach fact issues when ruling on a motion for authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Charles Raby, a death-row inmate convicted of murder without any physical evidence tying him to the crime, moved the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for authorization to file a second habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence that blood not belonging to Petitioner or the murder victim was found under the victim’s fingernails. While “readily acknowledg[ing] that the previously unavailable evidence muddies the waters,” the Fifth Circuit denied the motion for authorization. In re Raby, 925 F.3d 749, 759 (5th Cir. 2019). Exceeding its jurisdiction at the gatekeeping stage, the court concluded that “Raby does not establish that if the newly discovered evidence had been available to him in 1994, no reasonable juror would have voted to convict.” Id. at 760 (emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction in this matter was limited to deciding the preliminary question of authorization to file a successive habeas petition; instead, it decided the merits of the habeas petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C), a movant seeking a circuit court’s authorization to file a successive habeas petition must only make “a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.” The district court will then “dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the requirements of this section.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4). Petitioner is not seeking review of the Fifth Circuit’s premature determination that he has not met the § 2244 requirements for a successive habeas ii petition; indeed, the Fifth Circuit had no jurisdiction to reach that decision. The Court’s intervention is needed to clarify, as a matter of first impression, a circuit court’s jurisdiction upon reviewing a motion for authorization. The questions presented are: 1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) permits a court of appeals, when ruling on a motion for authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence, to reach fact issues raised by that evidence. 2. Whether a movant seeking authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) based on newly discovered evidence must establish that, had that evidence been available at trial, no reasonable juror would have voted to convict. 3. Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to usurp the district court’s statutory responsibility for resolving, in the first instance, whether a petitioner has shown he is authorized to pursue habeas corpus relief in a successive habeas corpus proceeding, or whether the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is limited to its statutory role of determining whether there is a prima facie case for such relief. iii