Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moran v. Stalder, 96-30892 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-30892 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 03, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30892 _ JOHN A. MORAN, Petitioner, versus RICHARD L. STALDER, SECRETARY LA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ August 19, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is a successive habeas petition filed in the district court in February 1996, before the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
More
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                          _______________________

                                No. 96-30892
                          _______________________


JOHN A. MORAN,

                                                              Petitioner,

                                  versus

RICHARD L. STALDER, SECRETARY
LA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                              Respondent.


_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Louisiana
_________________________________________________________________

                              August 19, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          This   is   a    successive   habeas   petition   filed   in   the

district court in February 1996, before the effective date of the

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The district court

held, and we initially agreed, that because the petition was

pending at the effective date of the AEDPA, petitioner Moran was

required to obtain a certificate of appealability in this court


     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
pursuant to newly enacted § 2244(b).   As it turned out, the Supreme

Court did not agree with this position.   Lindh v. Murphy, ___ S.Ct.

___ (1997), and it has held the COA requirement inapplicable to

petitions filed before the effective date of AEDPA.   Consequently,

we must reverse and remand for consideration of Moran’s petition in

the district court pursuant to pre-AEDPA standards.

          REVERSED and REMANDED.




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer