This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and related charges.
Background and question before the Court
Rivers argues that his filing does not trigger the requirements of §2244(b) because it was submitted while his first habeas petition was still on appeal.
According to Rivers, the legal question is whether Rivers's filing constitutes a second or successive habeas petition under §2244(b) of the AEDPA.
What each side argues
Rivers
Rivers argues that his filing does not qualify as a second or successive application under §2244(b) because it was submitted during the pendency of his appeal of the judgment related to his first habeas petition.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
The Court does not agree with Rivers's proposition that his filing is not a second or successive application.
Whether a filing qualifies as a second or successive application generally turns on the existence of a final judgment on the first petition, not the status of an appeal.
Such filings are not themselves properly considered to be second or successive applications under AEDPA.
A second‑in‑time §2254 petition generally qualifies as a second or successive application, triggering the requirements of §2244(b), when an earlier filed petition has been decided on the merits and a judgment exists.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 12e7979f36fbe4e2254e-r1-2b97ff6b76054c9a.pdfopinion
- a099bb875183dd644bf9-r1-eea102aea60f6d32.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.