CA11: 4A claims not cognizable for successor habeas

Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims can’t be the basis for a successor habeas because none of the statutory grounds are available here. In re Hammond, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3419 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020):

Hammond does not raise any other claim that meets the statutory criteria. First, he does not explain how his remaining claims—that his arrest warrants were not properly authenticated, that the state court records lacked issue dates of his arrest warrants, and that there was no record of his indictment being returned in open court—if proven, would establish his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, especially given that he pleaded guilty to the armed robbery. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). Notably, Hammond also does not explain how the state court records associated with his 2012 conviction that he relies upon could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence before he filed his first § 2254 petition in 2016. See id. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i); In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1997) (Authorization will not be granted for a claim predicated on facts that would have been uncovered through a “reasonable investigation” undertaken before the initial § 2254 petition was litigated.). Further, Hammond does not assert that his claims rely on a new rule of constitutional law. See id. § 2244(b)(2)(A). Thus, Hammond does not state a prima facie claim for relief in his third, fourth, or fifth claims.