(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain
an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the
United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has
been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior
application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed unless -
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been
discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall
move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing
the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider a second or successive application shall
be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or
successive application only if it determines that the application
makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the
requirements of this subsection.
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to
file a second or successive application not later than 30 days
after the filing of the motion.
(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals
to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable
and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a
writ of certiorari.
(4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a
second or successive application that the court of appeals has
authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim
satisfies the requirements of this section.
(c) In a habeas corpus proceeding brought in behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a prior
judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal or
review by a writ of certiorari at the instance of the prisoner of
the decision of such State court, shall be conclusive as to all
issues of fact or law with respect to an asserted denial of a
Federal right which constitutes ground for discharge in a habeas
corpus proceeding, actually adjudicated by the Supreme Court
therein, unless the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus shall
plead and the court shall find the existence of a material and
controlling fact which did not appear in the record of the
proceeding in the Supreme Court and the court shall further find
that the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus could not have
caused such fact to appear in such record by the exercise of
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period
shall run from the latest of -
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented
from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been
newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise
of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the
pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward
any period of limitation under this subsection.