The following excerpt is from Sullivan v. Ylst, 46 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 1995):
A district court may, without a hearing, dismiss a claim as successive if: "(1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application." Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963). A district court's decision to deny consideration of the merits of a habeas petition because it is successive is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Howard v. Lewis, 905 F.2d 1318, 1321 (9th Cir.1990). We hold there was no abuse of discretion based upon the reasons stated by the district judge.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.