CA11: A late discovered search claim doesn’t support a successor 2255 petition

“Wren cannot meet the statutory criteria for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. First, even assuming that the search warrant is ‘newly discovered’ insofar as it had been sealed, it does nothing to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found him ‘guilty of the offense.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). The warrant in no way suggests that he did not factually commit the crimes for which he was convicted.” In re Wren, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24485 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).

Search claims generally can’t be brought via a successor petition. United States v. Kimball, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24592 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019).

Defendants get qualified immunity for an arrest on an arrest warrant they sought that was based at least on “arguable probable cause.” Just because there was a fact question for a criminal case doesn’t mean it was without any probable cause. They reasonably relied on the arrest warrant and the judicial finding of probable cause. Thus: qualified immunity. Stefani v. City of Grovetown, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24495 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Abstention, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.