Bruce Kilgore v. Michael Bowersox

Eighth Circuit

Bruce Kilgore v. Michael Bowersox

181 F.3d 895, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13203, 1999 WL 391367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 1999

Docket99-2556

StatusPublished

This text of 181 F.3d 895 (Bruce Kilgore v. Michael Bowersox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce Kilgore v. Michael Bowersox, 181 F.3d 895, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13203, 1999 WL 391367 (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for leave to file a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus. The application is denied.

Petitioner must meet the standards of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). AEDPA applies to this application. It is not relevant that petitioner’s first habeas petition, see Kilgore v. Bowersox, 124 F.3d 985 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2352, 141 L.Ed.2d 722 (1998), was initially filed in the District Court before the enactment of AEDPA. The relevant date is the date of the filing of this application, which of course is after the enactment of AEDPA. Nor are the new statute’s restrictions on *896 successive petitions unconstitutional. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996).

Petitioner’s application does not meet the standards of the statute. Most of his arguments, e.g., his attack on the “verdict-director” jury instruction, have been considered and rejected before. (We have, nonetheless, in order to satisfy ourselves, considered the argument anew. It is without merit. The Missouri cases petitioner cites do not, in our view, disapprove the instruction.) The other arguments are abusive, in the sense that they have not been made before. We may not consider them, because they do not meet the demanding requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

Application denied. The motion for stay of execution is denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for leave to file a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus. The application is denied.

Petitioner must meet the standards of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). AEDPA applies to this application. It is not relevant that petitioner’s first habeas petition, see Kilgore v. Bowersox, 124 F.3d 985 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2352, 141 L.Ed.2d 722 (1998), was initially filed in the District Court before the enactment of AEDPA. The relevant date is the date of the filing of this application, which of course is after the enactment of AEDPA. Nor are the new statute’s restrictions on *896 successive petitions unconstitutional. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996).

Petitioner’s application does not meet the standards of the statute. Most of his arguments, e.g., his attack on the “verdict-director” jury instruction, have been considered and rejected before. (We have, nonetheless, in order to satisfy ourselves, considered the argument anew. It is without merit. The Missouri cases petitioner cites do not, in our view, disapprove the instruction.) The other arguments are abusive, in the sense that they have not been made before. We may not consider them, because they do not meet the demanding requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

Application denied. The motion for stay of execution is denied.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 F.3d 895, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 13203, 1999 WL 391367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-kilgore-v-michael-bowersox-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack