{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-07", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:9dbc3a", "proof": "sha256:d524dade049d5c11abb276145fbbe378d642c5530afa0b78ae1c7528529a7077", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "File Name: 26a0275p.06", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14", "para_15" ] }, { "title": "Decided and Filed: September 30, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_17", "para_18" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ON MOTION TO REMAND: Stephen A. Ferrell, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Christa Pike. ON RESPONSE:", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26" ] }, { "title": "ORDER", "paragraphs": [ "para_28" ] }, { "title": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern", "paragraphs": [ "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion to reopen the judgment denying habeas relief. The", "paragraphs": [ "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 2", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "Pike has filed a Motion to Remand Rule 60(b) Motion to the District Court, arguing that", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "The State responds that Pike’s motion is properly considered a second or successive", "paragraphs": [ "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "To adequately address and resolve the issues now presented to this court and in carefully", "paragraphs": [ "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Therefore, it is ORDERED that execution of the sentence of death upon the movant is", "paragraphs": [ "para_65" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 4", "paragraphs": [ "para_67" ] }, { "title": "DISSENT", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70" ] }, { "title": "The present matter is another last-ditch meritless effort to delay a lawful execution. My", "paragraphs": [ "para_72", "para_73" ] }, { "title": "Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244 et seq., which expressly limits the power of federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_75" ] }, { "title": "(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under", "paragraphs": [ "para_77" ] }, { "title": "(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under", "paragraphs": [ "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83" ] }, { "title": "(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered", "paragraphs": [ "para_85" ] }, { "title": "(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as", "paragraphs": [ "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "In my view, petitioner’s motion to reopen the judgment is clearly a second or successive", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93" ] }, { "title": "Master’s hearing on the legality of the execution method:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Now, as for issue two which deals with Ms. Pike’s cited history of sexual assault", "paragraphs": [ "para_96" ] }, { "title": "I think everybody in this courtroom wishes that those things had never happened", "paragraphs": [ "para_98" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 5", "paragraphs": [ "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "AEDPA governs whether a 60(b) motion filed by a petitioner is a habeas corpus", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122" ] }, { "title": "Rule 60(b) motion—after all, challenging a procedural bar is separate from “substantively", "paragraphs": [ "para_124", "para_125" ] }, { "title": "But by her own account, the State’s remarks allegedly challenge our deference to the state", "paragraphs": [ "para_127" ] }, { "title": "Put simply, in our prior resolution of the merits, we held that Pike failed to prove the", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 6", "paragraphs": [ "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135" ] }, { "title": "379. Recall that the Court in Gonzalez explicitly stated that “on the merits” refers “to a", "paragraphs": [ "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146" ] }, { "title": "Again, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act mandates that “a claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151" ] }, { "title": "As discussed above, Pike’s claim is that the State’s recent remarks undermine the state", "paragraphs": [ "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162" ] }, { "title": "ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT", "paragraphs": [ "para_164" ] }, { "title": "Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk", "paragraphs": [] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "File Name: 26a0275p.06", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "IN RE: CHRISTA GAIL PIKE,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Petitioner-Movant.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "┐", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "┘", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Transferred as an Application for a Second or Successive Habeas Petition in a Capital Case.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "No. 1:12-cv-00035—Clifton Leland Corker, District Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Decided and Filed: September 30, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Before: MOORE, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "ON MOTION TO REMAND: Stephen A. Ferrell, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Christa Pike. ON RESPONSE:", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "John H. Bledsoe, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville,", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Tennessee, for the State.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "STRANCH, J., delivered the order of the court in which MOORE, J., concurred.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 4–7), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "ORDER", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "District of Tennessee determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Christa Pike’s Federal", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion to reopen the judgment denying habeas relief. The", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "district court concluded that Pike’s motion was effectively a second habeas petition subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": ">", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 2", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. It then transferred this case in its entirety to", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "our court.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Pike has filed a Motion to Remand Rule 60(b) Motion to the District Court, arguing that", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "her district court motion is a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, not a second or successive habeas petition.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "She states that the State recently reversed its litigation position that she is a liar who fabricated", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "sexual abuse. Pike contends that the State’s concession of her history of child sexual abuse and", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "rape “erodes the foundation” of her state court proceedings. Pike ties this erosion to defects in", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "the federal court proceedings because, under AEDPA, the district court was required to give", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "strong deference to the state court’s findings of facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Pike also", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "cites scholarly authority supporting her argument that the State’s representations about her", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "history of sexual abuse tainted the state court proceedings and the subsequent federal ones by", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "introducing damaging stereotypes of survivors of sexual assault. Pike contends that her motion", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "is an attack on the integrity of her habeas proceedings, and, thus, properly considered a Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "60(b)(6) motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "The State responds that Pike’s motion is properly considered a second or successive", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "habeas petition and asserts that Pike must comply with § 2244(b). It argues that Pike does not", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "challenge the integrity of the federal proceedings but rather attempts to relitigate the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "her first habeas petition, rendering her motion a second habeas petition. See id. The State", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "contends that Pike’s motion seeks to reassert her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "was based on her trial counsel’s alleged failure to introduce evidence of or even investigate her", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "history of child sexual abuse.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "To adequately address and resolve the issues now presented to this court and in carefully", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "balancing the equities, we find that a stay of Pike’s execution is necessary. “[A] stay of", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "execution is an equitable remedy,” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 584 (2006), one which we", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "have exercised to stay executions in the past, see Hartman v. Bobby, 319 F. App’x 370, 371 (6th", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "Cir. 2009). The interests of justice and the finality of Pike’s impending execution compel the", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "entry of a short stay of execution in order to properly analyze the parties’ fully briefed arguments", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "and resolve the issues on the merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 3", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Therefore, it is ORDERED that execution of the sentence of death upon the movant is", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "STAYED until further order of this court. The Clerk shall give immediate notice to all parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 4", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "DISSENT", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "The present matter is another last-ditch meritless effort to delay a lawful execution. My", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "colleagues have issued an order staying the execution, as “an equitable remedy,” in the “interests", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "of justice.” In doing so, the majority has ignored the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244 et seq., which expressly limits the power of federal", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "courts to stay an execution based upon a second or successive habeas petition:", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "unless—", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law,", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "previously unavailable; or", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "previously through the exercise of due diligence; and", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "applicant guilty of the underlying offense.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "In my view, petitioner’s motion to reopen the judgment is clearly a second or successive", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "motion subject to dismissal under AEDPA. No new facts are alleged in the motion. Rather,", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "petitioner cites statements of empathy made by the State at the conclusion of the Special", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Master’s hearing on the legality of the execution method:", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Now, as for issue two which deals with Ms. Pike’s cited history of sexual assault", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "and PTSD. The State does not dispute the terrible things that Ms. Pike suffered.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "I think everybody in this courtroom wishes that those things had never happened", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "to Ms. Pike. I think we all wish that we were not here today and that she was not", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 5", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "on death row. Certainly none of us take any pleasure in this. And so it’s certainly", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "not the State’s intention to try to minimize the suffering that Ms. Pike has", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "experienced. But that’s not the issue before the Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "AEDPA governs whether a 60(b) motion filed by a petitioner is a habeas corpus", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "application. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). When a", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Rule 60(b) motion advances a “claim,” the motion should be treated like a habeas application.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Id. at 533. “A motion can [] be said to bring a ‘claim’ if it attacks the federal court’s previous", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "resolution of a claim on the merits, since alleging that the court erred in denying habeas relief on", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "the merits is effectively indistinguishable from alleging that the movant is, under the substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "provisions of the statutes, entitled to habeas relief.” Id. at 532. In a footnote, the Court defined", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "“on the merits”:", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "[It refers] here to a determination that there exist or do not exist grounds entitling", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "a petitioner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a) and (d). When a", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "movant asserts one of those grounds (or asserts that a previous ruling regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "one of those grounds was in error) he is making a habeas corpus claim. He is not", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "doing so when he merely asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a merits", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "determination was in error-for example, a denial for such reasons as failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "exhaust, procedural default, or statute-of-limitations bar.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "Id. at 532 n.4. Attacking the court’s resolution of a claim on the merits is contrasted with", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "attacking “not the substance . . . but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "proceedings.” Id. at 532. In Gonzalez, the Court concluded that because the petitioner alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "that the federal court “misapplied the federal statute of limitations,” it was properly brought as a", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "Rule 60(b) motion—after all, challenging a procedural bar is separate from “substantively", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "address[ing] federal grounds for setting aside the” conviction. Id. at 533.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Pike characterizes her Rule 60(b) Motion as falling within this exception in Gonzalez.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "But by her own account, the State’s remarks allegedly challenge our deference to the state", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "court’s postconviction determinations. This brings a “claim.”", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Put simply, in our prior resolution of the merits, we held that Pike failed to prove the", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "prejudice prong necessary to her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Pike v. Gross, 936", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "F.3d 372, 383 (6th Cir. 2019). We did so, in part, by giving the appropriate deference warranted", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 6", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "to the state court determinations under AEDPA. Id. Whether the state court’s application of", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "federal law or view of the facts was unreasonable was the whole merits decision. See 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "§ 2254(d) (permitting overturning a state conviction only if it was “an unreasonable application", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "of” federal law or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.”); Pike, 936 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "379. Recall that the Court in Gonzalez explicitly stated that “on the merits” refers “to a", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "determination that there exist or do not exist grounds entitling a petitioner to habeas corpus relief", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a) and (d).” 545 U.S. at 532 n.4 (emphasis added). Pike alleges that", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "the “defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings” undermines our determination that", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "grounds did not exist to entitle her to habeas relief under § 2254(d). Thus, when Pike argues that", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "the State’s recent remarks render the state court determinations unreasonable, she challenges our", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "decision “on the merits” and raises a “claim.”", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Therefore, the district court properly transferred Pike’s Rule 60(b) Motion to this court as", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "a second or successive application that needs our authorization to proceed. See In re Sims,", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Again, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act mandates that “a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Only after passing", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "that initial hurdle do we consider new rules of constitutional law or new facts. 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "§ 2244(b)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "As discussed above, Pike’s claim is that the State’s recent remarks undermine the state", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "court’s prejudice determinations. According to Pike, had the State conceded the veracity of", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Pike’s reported sexual abuse and rapes eighteen years ago, the state court would have reached a", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "different conclusion as to Pike’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In other words, Pike", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "challenges the same claim as before—the ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "stage. Because that claim has been raised, § 2244 requires that the second or successive petition", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "be dismissed. I would accordingly deny Pike’s Motion to Remand and dismiss Pike’s second or", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "successive application pursuant to AEDPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "No. 26-5864 In re Pike Page 7", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "___________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk", "paragraph_id": "para_165" } ], "word_count": 1825, "cites": [ "545 U.S. 524", "547 U.S. 573", "936\nF.3d 372", "111 F.3d 45" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "d163b2b016728aa0c5b8814e1122fb7162217ada9c1b0465a2bee39606e5928a", "source_url": "http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0275p-06.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T15:25:13.085+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "d163b2b016728aa0c5b8814e1122fb7162217ada9c1b0465a2bee39606e5928a", "recomputed_sha256": "d163b2b016728aa0c5b8814e1122fb7162217ada9c1b0465a2bee39606e5928a", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-07T12:34:23.468Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:d524dade049d5c11abb276145fbbe378d642c5530afa0b78ae1c7528529a7077", "version": "legal-2026-10-07", "expires": "2026-10-08T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-07+legal-2026-10-07+2026-10-07T12:10:27", "content_hash": "sha256:d524dade049d5c11abb276145fbbe378d642c5530afa0b78ae1c7528529a7077", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-07T13:34:23.644Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5864-2026-09-30", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }