The pitfalls of habeas petitions

This case highlights the complexities and pitfalls of habeas corpus petitions. The Court of Appeals finds that the criminal-defendant turned habeas petitioner cannot file a second petition under the habeas rules.

The case is Forbes v. United States, issued on November 21. Forbes was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and unlawful possession of a firearm. He brought a habeas corpus petition, claiming the criminal convictions violated the U.S. Constitution. Those petitions were denied on the merits.Later on, Forbes asked the federal trial court for permission to file additional habeas petitions based on new evidence. The trial court denied that request, concluding that Forbes had not shown any entitlement to equitable tolling of the limitations period. That brings his case to the Court of Appeals.

Under the rules, you cannot file successive habeas petitions without an order from the Court of Appeals allowing you to do so. This means the trial courts lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of successive claims, and the trial courts should transfer such claims to the Court of Appeals. Since Forbes had already filed a habeas petition with the trial court, he needed the Second Circuit's permission to file an additional petition. But he did not file such a motion in the Second Circuit and instead asked the trial court for more time to file the petition in that court.

The Second Circuit (Jabobs, Merriam and Cronan, D.J.) holds that the trial court did not have authority, or jurisdiction, to rule on Forbes' request for equitable tolling. The successive habeas petition could not be filed at all without permission from the Court of Appeals. This means the successive habeas petition in the district court was not authorized.