Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Randy GREENAWALT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
Citations: 105 F.3d 1287; 97 Daily Journal DAR 1119; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 721; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1526; 1997 WL 33548Docket: 97-99002
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 22, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Randy Greenawalt filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 1997, following the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also requested a stay of execution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that Greenawalt was attempting to bypass limitations on successive petitions by framing his request as a § 2241 petition, but clarified that federal courts' authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners is constrained by § 2254, as established in Felker v. Turpin. The court treated his notice of appeal as an application for permission to file a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed new restrictions on successive claims, requiring either a new retroactive constitutional rule or previously undiscoverable facts that would demonstrate a significant chance of proving innocence. Greenawalt's claim centered on the constitutionality of lethal injection for first-degree murder convictions. However, the Arizona Supreme Court had denied his petition for review on January 21, 1997. The Ninth Circuit found that Greenawalt failed to demonstrate reliance on a new retroactive constitutional law or to meet the criteria for presenting a successive petition. Consequently, his application to authorize the district court to consider his successive petition was dismissed, and the request for a stay of execution was denied. The court indicated that an appeal from the district court's order would also require a certificate of appealability under § 2253(c)(1)(A).