Reported / Citable
Background
Gregg Haden, a Texas inmate, was sentenced in 2015 to 75 years for each count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and 20 years for each count of indecency with a child, with sentences ordered to run consecutively. He appealed his conviction but the state appellate court affirmed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his petition for discretionary review.
Haden filed a state habeas application (denied) and a federal habeas petition in this court in 2019, which was denied. The Fifth Circuit denied him a certificate of appealability, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari in June 2023. Haden then filed two separate motions for authorization to file a successive habeas petition at the Fifth Circuit—one in October 2025 and another in May 2026—both of which were denied. He initiated the present proceeding in February 2026 without prior Fifth Circuit authorization.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denial of a certificate of appealability. Haden filed timely objections and a motion for a certificate of appealability.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Haden’s petition constituted a second or successive habeas petition governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain successive petitions unless the Fifth Circuit authorizes or allows them to proceed.
Although 28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits a district court to transfer a successive petition to the circuit court when it lacks jurisdiction and transfer is in the interest of justice, federal courts have repeatedly refused transfers when the petitioner has a history of filing unauthorized successive petitions or when transfer would be inefficient and redundant. Here, the Fifth Circuit had already twice denied Haden’s motions for authorization, and this court had previously considered and rejected his underlying claims on the merits. The Fifth Circuit had also considered and denied his certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court had denied certiorari. A transfer would therefore be inefficient and redundant.
Accordingly, the court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied Haden’s motion for a certificate of appealability.
Key Takeaways
- Under AEDPA, successive habeas petitions require prior authorization from the appellate court; a district court lacks jurisdiction to hear them otherwise.
- District courts may transfer successive petitions to the circuit court under § 1631, but are not required to do so when transfer would be inefficient or redundant, particularly when the circuit court has already twice denied authorization.
- A petitioner’s history of filing multiple unauthorized successive petitions is a relevant factor against transfer and weighs toward dismissal.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects the stringent gatekeeping mechanisms embedded in AEDPA to prevent repeated challenges to convictions through federal habeas corpus. For inmates who have already received appellate rulings and failed to obtain circuit court authorization for successive petitions, subsequent filing attempts without authorization will result in automatic dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Courts will not expend judicial resources transferring such petitions to appellate courts that have already ruled against the petitioner multiple times.
The holding demonstrates that AEDPA’s policy of finality in criminal convictions is rigorously enforced: once an inmate has exhausted initial federal habeas remedies and been twice denied circuit court authorization for successive petitions, further filings face insurmountable jurisdictional barriers rather than merits review.