USA v. Ephren Taylor, II
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed in Part
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Ephren Taylor’s multiple post-judgment motions as unauthorized second-or-successive § 2255 filings, holding that such filings require prior circuit authorization once a final judgment has entered, even if the original habeas appeal is pending. However, it vacated and remanded the denial of Taylor’s request to modify certain supervised-release conditions, instructing the district court to address the pertinent § 3553(a) factors.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a second-in-time federal habeas filing (28 U.S.C. § 2254/§ 2255) made while the appeal from the first habeas judgment is still pending is a “second or successive” application that triggers the gate-keeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Circuit Positions
Second-in-time petition filed during the pendency of the first appeal is NOT ‘second or successive’; petitioner may proceed without § 2244(b) authorization.
Second-in-time petition filed during the pendency of the first appeal IS ‘second or successive’ and requires § 2244(b) authorization.
Conflict Summary
Several circuits held that a second-in-time habeas petition filed while an earlier habeas appeal is pending is NOT ‘second or successive’ and may proceed without § 2244(b) authorization, while other circuits—including the Eleventh in Boyd—held that entry of a final judgment on the first petition renders any later-filed habeas application ‘second or successive’ even if the appeal is pending, thus requiring pre-authorization under § 2244(b).