Archive reference note: parts of this topic refer to earlier research records, now listed under open research questions.
28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h) — Successive-Application Gatekeeping
Verification boundary
This module verifies the nationwide statutory division between state-prisoner applications and federal-prisoner motions, the text of the authorization procedure, the separate substantive gates, and the two holdings in Bowe v. United States. It does not decide whether a particular later filing is “second or successive,” whether a proposed claim satisfies a statutory gate, or which rehearing practice a particular circuit follows.
Keep the state and federal tracks separate
Sections 2244(b)(1) and (b)(2) apply by their terms to second or successive habeas applications under § 2254, and § 2244(d) applies to applications by persons in custody pursuant to state-court judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), (b)(2), (d)
Section 2244(d)'s one-year limitation and statutory tolling provisions govern the state-judgment track described there; they are not the limitation provisions for a federal prisoner's § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)
The state-prisoner substantive gates in § 2244(b)(2) and the federal-prisoner gates in § 2255(h) are not identically worded, so a federal § 2255(h) analysis must use § 2255(h)'s substantive requirements rather than silently substituting § 2244(b)(2). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255(h)
Section 2244(b)(3) authorization procedure
Before a second or successive § 2254 application is filed in district court, the applicant must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider it. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
The court of appeals must assign the authorization motion to a three-judge panel. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B)
The panel may authorize filing only if it determines that the applicant has made a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244(b)'s requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C)
Section 2244(b)(3)(D) directs the court of appeals to grant or deny authorization not later than thirty days after the motion is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D)
This module records the statutory command but does not label it jurisdictional, establish a remedy for noncompliance, or assume every circuit treats it as enforceable. Those questions require controlling-circuit research.
For the state-prisoner authorization decision governed directly by § 2244(b)(3), subsection (E) says the grant or denial is not appealable and may not be the subject of rehearing or certiorari. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E)
After the court of appeals authorizes a state-prisoner claim, the district court must dismiss that authorized claim unless the applicant shows that it satisfies § 2244(b)'s requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4)
Subsection (b)(4) is a post-authorization screen of an authorized claim. It does not say, as the legacy draft stated, that its specific command is to dismiss every claim the court of appeals did not authorize.
Federal-prisoner gate under § 2255(h)
A second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified as provided in § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain either qualifying newly discovered evidence under § 2255(h)(1) or a qualifying new rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)
Whether a later filing is “second or successive,” whether evidence is qualifying, and whether the Supreme Court has made a new constitutional rule retroactive are separate questions not resolved by this structural module.
Bowe v. United States
Section 2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar Supreme Court certiorari review of a federal prisoner's request to file a successive § 2255 motion. Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13, 19–32 (2026)
Section 2244(b)(1)'s previously-presented-claim bar does not apply to successive motions filed by federal prisoners under § 2255(h). Bowe, 607 U.S. at 32–38
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for the Eleventh Circuit to decide Bowe's authorization request under the correct standard; the Supreme Court did not itself authorize his successive motion. Bowe, 607 U.S. at 38
Bowe distinguished § 2244(b)(3)(E)'s rehearing language from its certiorari language and did not decide whether that rehearing bar applies to federal-prisoner authorization decisions. Bowe, 607 U.S. at 29–30
The legacy statement that a federal authorization denial “remains non-rehearable” therefore is not preserved as a Bowe holding. Circuit-specific rehearing rules and precedent must be checked before stating the answer for a particular court of appeals.
Procedural checklist
- Identify whether the custody and underlying judgment are state or federal.
- Obtain every earlier § 2254 application or § 2255 motion and every disposition.
- Research whether the proposed filing is legally “second or successive”; do not equate that term with merely second in time.
- If authorization is required, apply the correct substantive gate—§ 2244(b)(2) for the state track or § 2255(h) for the federal track.
- Use the appropriate court of appeals' current authorization form, filing rules, and controlling cases.
- Treat the thirty-day text as a command to the court, not as a promised decision date or a demonstrated remedy.
- For a federal denial, preserve the distinction among ordinary appeal, rehearing, and Supreme Court certiorari after Bowe.
- If authorization is granted, expect independent district-court review; authorization is not a merits judgment.
Decision path
flowchart TD
A["Proposed later collateral filing"] --> B{"State § 2254 or federal § 2255?"}
B -->|"State"| C{"Legally second or successive?"}
B -->|"Federal"| D{"Legally second or successive?"}
C -->|"Yes"| E["Apply § 2244(b)(1)-(2); seek § 2244(b)(3) authorization"]
D -->|"Yes"| F["Apply § 2255(h); seek panel certification as provided in § 2244"]
E --> G["Three-judge panel; prima facie screen"]
F --> G
G --> H{"Authorization outcome"}
H -->|"Granted"| I["District court independently applies governing requirements"]
H -->|"Federal denial"| J["Bowe preserves Supreme Court certiorari; rehearing question requires circuit research"]
H -->|"State denial"| K["Apply § 2244(b)(3)(E)"]
Matters not yet verified in this module
- The Supreme Court and circuit doctrines defining “second or successive,” including new-judgment, ripeness, Rule 60, and recharacterization issues.
- Circuit-specific prima facie standards, authorization forms, rehearing practice, and treatment of the thirty-day command.
- The merits of either statutory substantive gate, retroactivity doctrine, limitations rules under § 2255(f), and certificates of appealability.
- District-court transfer-versus-dismissal practice for unauthorized filings.
Those matters remain open in data/coverage_matrix.yaml; this module does not represent the full § 2244 or § 2255 field as complete.
Claim-level source records
CLM-2244-001 · verified_current
Sections 2244(b)(1) and (b)(2) apply by their terms to second or successive habeas applications under § 2254, and § 2244(d) applies to applications by persons in custody pursuant to state-court judgments.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_collateral_review
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This claim identifies express statutory subjects; it does not resolve every cross-reference or case-law application.
- researcher notes
- Direct text of § 2244(b)(1), (b)(2), and (d).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-002 · verified_current
Before a second or successive § 2254 application is filed in district court, the applicant must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider it.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- pre_filing_authorization_state_habeas
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This direct § 2244(b)(3)(A) claim is framed for the § 2254 application expressly governed by subsection (b).
- researcher notes
- Direct paraphrase of § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-003 · verified_current
The court of appeals must assign the authorization motion to a three-judge panel.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_application_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- Panel composition and internal assignment procedures are not addressed.
- researcher notes
- Direct paraphrase of § 2244(b)(3)(B).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-004 · verified_current
The panel may authorize filing only if it determines that the applicant has made a prima facie showing that the application satisfies § 2244(b)'s requirements.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_application_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- Circuit-specific definitions and application of prima facie remain unverified.
- researcher notes
- Direct paraphrase of § 2244(b)(3)(C).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-005 · verified_current
Section 2244(b)(3)(D) directs the court of appeals to grant or deny authorization not later than thirty days after the motion is filed.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_application_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- No jurisdictional classification, enforceability conclusion, or remedy for noncompliance is stated; circuit-specific authority is required.
- researcher notes
- Records the statutory command only.
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-006 · verified_current
For the state-prisoner authorization decision governed directly by § 2244(b)(3), subsection (E) says the grant or denial is not appealable and may not be the subject of rehearing or certiorari.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- state_habeas_authorization_decision
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- Bowe requires a distinct analysis for federal § 2255(h) authorization decisions.
- researcher notes
- Direct paraphrase of § 2244(b)(3)(E), limited to the statute's state track.
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-007 · verified_current
After the court of appeals authorizes a state-prisoner claim, the district court must dismiss that authorized claim unless the applicant shows that it satisfies § 2244(b)'s requirements.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- post_authorization_state_habeas
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This claim does not decide treatment of claims outside the appellate authorization or the federal § 2255 procedure.
- researcher notes
- Corrects the legacy inversion of § 2244(b)(4)'s authorized-claim text.
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-008 · verified_current
A second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified as provided in § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain either qualifying newly discovered evidence under § 2255(h)(1) or a qualifying new rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2).
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- federal_successive_motion_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This claim does not determine whether a filing is second or successive or whether either gate is met.
- researcher notes
- Direct paraphrase of § 2255(h).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
CLM-2244-009 · verified_current
Section 2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar Supreme Court certiorari review of a federal prisoner's request to file a successive § 2255 motion.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- certiorari_from_successive_motion_authorization_denial
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This holding does not imply that certiorari will be granted or that other review routes are available.
- researcher notes
- Bowe first holding, official preliminary print at 607 U.S. 19-32.
Authorities: Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13 (2026)
CLM-2244-010 · verified_current
Section 2244(b)(1)'s previously-presented-claim bar does not apply to successive motions filed by federal prisoners under § 2255(h).
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- federal_successive_motion
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- Every claim still must satisfy § 2255(h); Bowe did not eliminate other procedural or merits requirements.
- researcher notes
- Bowe second holding, official preliminary print at 607 U.S. 32-38.
Authorities: Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13 (2026)
CLM-2244-011 · verified_current
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for the Eleventh Circuit to decide Bowe's authorization request under the correct standard; the Supreme Court did not itself authorize his successive motion.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_motion_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- The Eleventh Circuit's post-remand disposition is outside this claim and must be checked separately before use.
- researcher notes
- Disposition at 607 U.S. 38.
Authorities: Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13 (2026)
CLM-2244-012 · verified_current
Bowe distinguished § 2244(b)(3)(E)'s rehearing language from its certiorari language and did not decide whether that rehearing bar applies to federal-prisoner authorization decisions.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- federal_successive_motion_authorization
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- A circuit-specific answer requires that circuit's current rules and precedent.
- researcher notes
- Holding boundary from 607 U.S. 29-30; this prevents overreading Bowe.
Authorities: Bowe v. United States, 607 U.S. 13 (2026)
CLM-2244-013 · verified_current
Section 2244(d)'s one-year limitation and statutory tolling provisions govern the state-judgment track described there; they are not the limitation provisions for a federal prisoner's § 2255 motion.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- collateral_review_limitations
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- This claim does not state or analyze § 2255(f)'s separate limitations rules.
- researcher notes
- Direct scope of § 2244(d).
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244
CLM-2244-014 · verified_current
The state-prisoner substantive gates in § 2244(b)(2) and the federal-prisoner gates in § 2255(h) are not identically worded, so a federal § 2255(h) analysis must use § 2255(h)'s substantive requirements rather than silently substituting § 2244(b)(2).
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- successive_collateral_review
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-24
- known limitations
- Case-law interpretation of each gate remains to be researched.
- researcher notes
- Side-by-side statutory-text comparison.
Authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 2244; 28 U.S.C. § 2255