U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ position in the case of Rivers v. Guerrero, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case centers on the interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and its provisions regarding habeas corpus petitions. Habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows a person to challenge their imprisonment and request to appear in court.
Danny Richard Rivers was convicted in 2012 on charges related to child sexual abuse in Texas. After unsuccessful attempts to obtain state habeas relief, Rivers filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied. While that appeal was pending, he filed a second federal habeas petition. The district court denied the second petition, citing AEDPA’s restrictions on “second or successive” habeas petitions.
Rivers argues that the law preventing successive habeas filings only applies when the appeal of the first is final, and that his second petition was actually an attempt to amend his original petition.
AEDPA, passed in 1996, generally limits convicts to filing one habeas petition unless specific circumstances are met, aiming to prevent federal courts from being overwhelmed by repeated petitions and to promote finality in criminal convictions.
In his brief, Cornyn backs the state, arguing that Danny Rivers’ petition relies on a flawed interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which, if accepted, would allow litigants to bypass safeguards on final judgments. Cornyn contends this interpretation directly contradicts AEDPA’s purpose of reducing delays in the execution of criminal sentences and promoting principles of comity, finality, and federalism.
“Rivers’s petition relies on a novel and atextual interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 that would allow not just habeas petitioners—but all civil litigants—to bypass the safeguards of final judgments,” according to Cornyn’s brief.
Cornyn urged the Court to uphold the procedures established by AEDPA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for challenging final judgments, thereby preserving the finality of judgments in both AEDPA cases and across the federal system.
“The Court should reject Rivers’s position and, instead, reaffirm the procedures established by AEDPA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for challenging final judgments,” stated Cornyn.
The brief emphasizes that allowing Rivers to amend his petition at this stage would create perverse incentives for prisoners to withhold claims, creating piecemeal litigation and swamping district courts with “mid-appeal” petitions.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Rivers v. Guerrero on March 31, 2025.
