The decision deals a blow to Danny Richard Rivers, who was convicted of child sexual abuse in Texas and sought to introduce new, potentially exculpatory evidence mid-appeal, and underscores the court's emphasis on finality over second chances when addressing habeas corpus.
In a unanimous decision in Rivers v. Guerrero, the court ruled that attempts by state prisoners to raise new claims while their habeas petitions are on appeal amount to "second or successive" petitions, which are generally forbidden under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, or AEDPA.
Writing for the majority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the need for finality in criminal cases.
"Drawing the second-or-successive line at the end of appellate review would allow petitioners to file numerous new applications during appeals, prolonging cases and encouraging piecemeal litigation," Justice Jackson wrote.
Rivers was convicted by a jury in Wichita Falls, Texas, in February 2012 after his daughter and stepdaughter accused him of more than 200 instances of sexual abuse. Prosecutors introduced two videos they described as child pornography at trial.
Rivers initially challenged his conviction through state post-conviction proceedings, but those efforts were unsuccessful. In 2017, acting without legal representation, Rivers filed a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
He claimed his trial attorney failed to call crucial witnesses and that his appellate lawyer failed to raise that omission on appeal. He also alleged prosecutorial misconduct and noted that his daughters' soccer coach had served on the jury without disclosing his relationship to the family — and his potential bias — during jury selection.
A warning on the federal habeas form advised Rivers that failing to include all possible claims could bar him from raising new ones later, a direct reference to AEDPA's strict limits on successive petitions.
In September 2018, the federal district court denied Rivers' petition, deferring to earlier state court findings that rejected his claims. But while his appeal was still pending before the Fifth Circuit, Rivers discovered new evidence in his case file: a state investigator's report labeling the two crucial videos "NOT CHILD PORN."
In February 2021, nearly three years after the initial denial, Rivers filed a habeas petition seeking to introduce the potentially exculpatory evidence. The district court refused to consider it, ruling the filing was a "second or successive" petition barred by AEDPA.
Rivers asked the Fifth Circuit to treat his filing as an amendment to his petition, which was still pending on appeal, but the court disagreed, holding that any new filing after a district court's final judgment counts as successive "no matter how titled."
In a certiorari petition filed with the Supreme Court in June 2024, Rivers argued that the federal circuits are deeply divided on when AEDPA's bar on successive petitions kicks in. He noted that the Second Circuit permits new claims until appellate review is complete, while the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits say the opportunity ends once the district court issues a final judgment. According to Rivers, the Tenth Circuit closes the door even earlier, and the Third Circuit's rule changes depending on whether the petitioner wins or loses on appeal.
The Supreme Court showed reluctance to carve out exceptions to AEDPA rules during oral arguments March 31, with pointed questioning coming from justices across the ideological spectrum.
The justices appeared skeptical of allowing prisoners to amend habeas petitions once a district court has entered judgment but while an appeal is pending. They questioned whether doing so would effectively create a loophole in AEDPA.
"Why wouldn't you be circumventing the statute here by just, you know, interpreting anything that comes in during an appeal as not being second or successive?" Justice Jackson asked Peter A. Bruland of Sidley Austin LLP, who argued on behalf of Rivers.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether Rivers followed the proper procedures for amending a habeas petition and directly challenged Bruland's characterization of the case law in the Second Circuit, where she previously served as a circuit judge.
"I'm not sure the rule is as absolute as you say," she told Bruland.
Both the Texas Attorney General's Office and the U.S. Solicitor General's Office backed the Fifth Circuit's decision, telling the justices that the AEDPA "gatekeeping" provisions are triggered once a district court enters final judgment.
"It is the entry of judgment that marks the terminal point in the proceedings after which the gatekeeping procedures in AEDPA apply," Matthew Guarnieri, an attorney with the DOJ, told the court.
Texas Solicitor General Aaron Lloyd Nielson told the justices squarely that they did not have the authority to directly probe Rivers' habeas claims.
"What the court doesn't have jurisdiction to do is to open a case that is not in front of it," he said. "That case was closed."
With its ruling on Thursday, the court clarified that whether a filing qualifies as a second or successive application depends on the existence of a final judgment with respect to the first habeas petition, not the status of an appeal.
In the majority opinion, Justice Jackson said Rivers' interpretation of federal habeas law would "promote inefficiency."
"If the second-or-successive line is drawn at the end of the appellate-review period, a petitioner could file any number of new applications raising new claims during the pendency of appeal or certiorari review, thereby prolonging the case seemingly indefinitely," she wrote. "We reject Rivers's focus on the timing of his successive filing relative to the pendency of his appeal, and we conclude instead that it is the final judgment related to the initial habeas filing that matters."
Rivers is represented by Peter Andrew Bruland of Sidley Austin LLP.
Texas is represented by Aaron Lloyd Nielson of the Office of the Texas Attorney General.
The federal government is represented by Matthew Guarnieri of the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General.
The case is Rivers v. Guerrero, case number 23-1345, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Editing by Michael Watanabe and Alex Hubbard.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
