Opinion
23-6152
10-31-2023
In re: MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL, Movant.
(D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00393-G) (W.D. Okla.)
Before HARTZ, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Michael A. Campbell pleaded no contest in 2009 to robbery charges in Oklahoma state court. He has already challenged his robbery convictions in a habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He now moves for authorization to file another § 2254 application, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), citing newly discovered evidence.
Mr. Campbell represents himself, so we construe his motion liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
But not just any newly discovered evidence will do. We may authorize a new § 2254 claim only if Mr. Campbell shows that "the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence" and that "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" him guilty of the robbery charges. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Attempting to satisfy this standard, Mr. Campbell alleges that a jailhouse informant gave a statement to law enforcement that led to his arrest. But when the informant got out of jail, he wrote Mr. Campbell a letter "apologizing for his lies." Mot. for Authorization at 8. Mr. Campbell gave the letter to his attorney, and he only recently learned that his attorney "never entered the apology letter into the record." Id.
These allegations do not allow us to authorize a new § 2254 application. Mr. Campbell's motion gives us no reason to think that the apology letter would have prevented any reasonable factfinder from finding him guilty. The motion does not say, for example, what the jailhouse informant told law enforcement, what the apology letter actually said, or what the evidence looked like as a whole. And so we do not have enough information to evaluate how the apology letter would have affected the evidence.
We deny Mr. Campbell's motion for authorization to file another § 2254 application. This denial "shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." § 2244(b)(3)(E).