## Facts

- Antonio Tonton Slack, a Nevada state prisoner convicted of second-degree murder, unsuccessfully pursued direct review in state court.
- In 1991, Slack filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Slack sought to pursue additional claims in state court; the federal district court dismissed the 1991 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust, allowing refiling after exhaustion.
- After completing state postconviction proceedings, Slack filed a new federal habeas petition in 1995 asserting multiple claims.
- The district court treated the 1995 petition as “second or successive” and dismissed with prejudice claims not raised in 1991 under the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine.
- After AEDPA’s enactment, Slack attempted to appeal; the district court and Ninth Circuit applied the pre-AEDPA certificate of probable cause (CPC) regime and denied review.

## Issues

1. Whether an appeal initiated after AEDPA’s effective date is governed by AEDPA’s certificate of appealability (COA) requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), even if the district-court petition was filed before AEDPA.
2. What standard governs issuance of a COA when the district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the constitutional claims.
3. Whether a habeas petition filed after an earlier petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies is “second or successive.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- AEDPA’s COA requirement in § 2253(c) governs any habeas appeal initiated after April 24, 1996, regardless of when the petition was filed in district court.
- When dismissal rests on a procedural ground, a COA should issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and (2) whether the procedural ruling was correct.
- A petition filed after a prior petition was dismissed without adjudication on the merits for failure to exhaust is not “second or successive,” though courts retain authority to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.

## Legal Principles

- The right to appeal in habeas cases initiated after AEDPA’s effective date is conditioned on a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
- For procedural dismissals, the COA inquiry is two-part: debatability of both the underlying constitutional claim and the procedural ruling.
- A dismissal without prejudice for non-merits failure to exhaust does not convert a later, post-exhaustion petition into a “second or successive” petition for habeas purposes.
- Federal courts may still employ tools, including abuse-of-the-writ principles, to control repetitive litigation where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Court held that AEDPA’s COA requirements apply to post-AEDPA habeas appeals, set a two-pronged COA test for procedural dismissals, and ruled that refiling after a non-merits exhaustion dismissal is not a “second or successive” petition.


Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)