499 U.S. 467 (1991)

McCLESKEY
v.
ZANT, SUPERINTENDENT, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER

No. 89-7024.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued October 31, 1990. Decided April 16, 1991. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

*469 John Charles Boger argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert H. Stroup, Julius L. Chambers III, Richard H. Burr III, George H. Kendall, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.

Mary Beth Westmoreland, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General.^[*]

*470 JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The doctrine of abuse of the writ defines the circumstances in which federal courts decline to entertain a claim presented for the first time in a second or subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Warren McCleskey in a second federal habeas petition presented a claim under Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964), that he failed to include in his first federal petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that assertion of the Massiah claim in this manner abused the writ. Though our analysis differs from that of the Court of Appeals, we agree that the petitioner here abused the writ, and we affirm the judgment.

I

McCleskey and three other men, all armed, robbed a Georgia furniture store in 1978. One of the robbers shot and killed an off duty policeman who entered the store in the midst of the crime. McCleskey confessed to the police that he participated in the robbery. When on trial for both the robbery and the murder, however, McCleskey renounced his confession after taking the stand with an alibi denying all involvement. To rebut McCleskey's testimony, the prosecution called Offie Evans, who had occupied a jail cell next to McCleskey's. Evans testified that McCleskey admitted shooting the officer during the robbery and boasted that he would have shot his way out of the store even in the face of a dozen policemen.

Although no one witnessed the shooting, further direct and circumstantial evidence supported McCleskey's guilt of the murder. An eyewitness testified that someone ran from the store carrying a pearl-handled pistol soon after the robbery. Other witnesses testified that McCleskey earlier had stolen a pearl-handled pistol of the same caliber as the bullet that killed the officer. Ben Wright, one of McCleskey's accomplices, confirmed that during the crime McCleskey carried a white-handled handgun matching the caliber of the fatal bullet. *471 Wright also testified that McCleskey admitted shooting the officer. Finally, the prosecutor introduced McCleskey's confession of participation in the robbery.

In December 1978, the jury convicted McCleskey of murder and sentenced him to death. Since his conviction, McCleskey has pursued direct and collateral remedies for more than a decade. We describe this procedural history in detail, both for a proper understanding of the case and as an illustration of the context in which allegations of abuse of the writ arise.

On direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, McCleskey raised six grounds of error. A summary of McCleskey's claims on direct appeal, as well as those he asserted in each of his four collateral proceedings, is set forth in the Appendix to this opinion, infra, at 503. The portion of the appeal relevant for our purposes involves McCleskey's attack on Evans' rebuttal testimony. McCleskey contended that the trial court "erred in allowing evidence of [McCleskey's] oral statement admitting the murder made to [Evans] in the next cell, because the prosecutor had deliberately withheld such statement" in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). McClesky v. State, 245 Ga. 108, 112, 263 S. E. 2d 146, 149 (1980). A unanimous Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged that the prosecutor did not furnish Evans' statement to the defense, but ruled that because the undisclosed evidence was not exculpatory, McCleskey suffered no material prejudice and was not denied a fair trial under Brady. 245 Ga., at 112-113, 263 S. E. 2d, at 149. The court noted, moreover, that the evidence McCleskey wanted to inspect was "introduced to the jury in its entirety" through Evans' testimony, and that McCleskey's argument that "the evidence was needed in order to prepare a proper defense or impeach other witnesses ha[d] no merit because the evidence requested was statements made by [McCleskey] himself." Ibid. The court rejected McCleskey's other contentions and *472 affirmed his conviction and sentence. Ibid. We denied certiorari. McClesky v. Georgia, 449 U. S. 891 (1980).

McCleskey then initiated postconviction proceedings. In January 1981, he filed a petition for state habeas corpus relief. The amended petition raised 23 challenges to his murder conviction and death sentence. See Appendix, infra, at 503. Three of the claims concerned Evans' testimony. First, McCleskey contended that the State violated his due process rights under Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), by its failure to disclose an agreement to drop pending escape charges against Evans in return for his cooperation and testimony. App. 20. Second, McCleskey reasserted his Brady claim that the State violated his due process rights by the deliberate withholding of the statement he made to Evans while in jail. App. 21. Third, McCleskey alleged that admission of Evans' testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. United States, supra. On this theory, "[t]he introduction into evidence of [his] statements to [Evans], elicited in a situation created to induce [McCleskey] to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, violated [McCleskey's] right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." App. 22.

At the state habeas corpus hearing, Evans testified that one of the detectives investigating the murder agreed to speak a word on his behalf to the federal authorities about certain federal charges pending against him. The state habeas court ruled that the ex parte recommendation did not implicate Giglio, and it denied relief on all other claims. The Supreme Court of Georgia denied McCleskey's application for a certificate of probable cause, and we denied his second petition for a writ of certiorari. McCleskey v. Zant, 454 U. S. 1093 (1981).

In December 1981, McCleskey filed his first federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting 18 grounds for relief. *473 See Appendix, infra, at 504-505. The petition failed to allege the Massiah claim, but it did reassert the Giglio and Brady claims. Following extensive hearings in August and October 1983, the District Court held that the detective's statement to Evans was a promise of favorable treatment, and that failure to disclose the promise violated Giglio. McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338, 380-384 (ND Ga. 1984). The District Court further held that Evans' trial testimony may have affected the jury's verdict on the charge of malice murder. On these premises it granted relief. Id., at 384.

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of the writ. McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F. 2d 877 (CAll 1985). The court held that the State had not made a promise to Evans of the kind contemplated by Giglio, and that in any event the Giglio error would be harmless. 753 F. 2d, at 884-885. The court affirmed the District Court on all other grounds. We granted certiorari limited to the question whether Georgia's capital sentencing procedures were constitutional, and denied relief. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987).

McCleskey continued his postconviction attacks by filing a second state habeas corpus action in 1987 which, as amended, contained five claims for relief. See Appendix, infra, at 505. One of the claims again centered on Evans' testimony, alleging that the State had an agreement with Evans that it had failed to disclose. The state trial court held a hearing and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of Georgia denied McCleskey's application for a certificate of probable cause.

In July 1987, McCleskey filed a second federal habeas action, the one we now review. In the District Court, McCleskey asserted seven claims, including a Massiah challenge to the introduction of Evans' testimony. See Appendix, infra, at 506. McCleskey had presented a Massiah claim, it will be recalled, in his first state habeas action when he alleged that the conversation recounted by Evans at trial had been "elicited *474 in a situation created to induce" him to make an incriminating statement without the assistance of counsel. The first federal petition did not present a Massiah claim. The proffered basis for the Massiah claim in the second federal petition was a 21-page signed statement that Evans made to the Atlanta Police Department on August 1, 1978, two weeks before the trial began. The department furnished the document to McCleskey one month before he filed his second federal petition.

The statement related pretrial jailhouse conversations that Evans had with McCleskey and that Evans overheard between McCleskey and Bernard Dupree. By the statement's own terms, McCleskey participated in all the reported jail-cell conversations. Consistent with Evans' testimony at trial, the statement reports McCleskey admitting and boasting about the murder. It also recounts that Evans posed as Ben Wright's uncle and told McCleskey he had talked with Wright about the robbery and the murder.

In his second federal habeas petition, McCleskey asserted that the statement proved Evans "was acting in direct concert with State officials" during the incriminating conversations with McCleskey, and that the authorities "deliberately elicited" inculpatory admissions in violation of McCleskey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S., at 206. 1 Tr. Exh. 1, pp. 11-12. Among other responses, the State of Georgia contended that McCleskey's presentation of a Massiah claim for the first time in the second federal petition was an abuse of the writ. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b); Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

The District Court held extensive hearings in July and August 1987 focusing on the arrangement the jailers had made for Evans' cell assignment in 1978. Several witnesses denied that Evans had been placed next to McCleskey by desigu or instructed to overhear conversations or obtain statements from McCleskey. McCleskey's key witness was Ulysses *475 Worthy, a jailer at the Fulton County Jail during the summer of 1978. McCleskey's lawyers contacted Worthy after a detective testified that the 1978 Evans statement was taken in Worthy's office. The District Court characterized Worthy's testimony as "often confused and self-contradictory." McCleskey v. Kemp, No. C87-1517A (ND Ga., Dec. 23, 1987), App. 81. Worthy testified that someone at some time requested permission to move Evans near McCleskey's cell. He contradicted himself, however, concerning when, why, and by whom Evans was moved, and about whether he overheard investigators urging Evans to engage McCleskey in conversation. Id., at 76-81.

On December 23, 1987, the District Court granted McCleskey relief based upon a violation of Massiah. Id., at 63-97. The court stated that the Evans statement "contains strong indication of an ab initio relationship between Evans and the authorities." Id., at 84. In addition, the court credited Worthy's testimony suggesting that the police had used Evans to obtain incriminating information from McCleskey. Based on the Evans statement and portions of Worthy's testimony, the District Court found that the jail authorities had placed Evans in the cell adjoining McCleskey's "for the purpose of gathering incriminating information"; that "Evans was probably coached in how to approach McCleskey and given critical facts unknown to the general public"; that Evans talked with McCleskey and eavesdropped on McCleskey's conversations with others; and that Evans reported what he had heard to the authorities. Id., at 83. These findings, in the District Court's view, established a Massiah violation.

In granting habeas relief, the District Court rejected the State's argument that McCleskey's assertion of the Massiah claim for the first time in the second federal petition constituted an abuse of the writ. The court ruled that McCleskey did not deliberately abandon the claim after raising it in his first state habeas petition. "This is not a case," the District *476 Court reasoned, "where petitioner has reserved his proof or deliberately withheld his claim for a second petition." Id., at 84. The District Court also determined that when McCleskey filed his first federal petition, he did not know about either the 21-page Evans document or the identity of Worthy, and that the failure to discover the evidence for the first federal petition "was not due to [McCleskey's] inexcusable neglect." Id., at 85.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss McCleskey's Massiah claim as an abuse of the writ. 890 F. 2d 342 (1989). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the petitioner must "show that he did not deliberately abandon the claim and that his failure to raise it [in the first federal habeas proceeding] was not due to inexcusable neglect." Id., at 346-347. Accepting the District Court's findings that at the first petition stage McCleskey knew neither the existence of the Evans statement nor the identity of Worthy, the court held that the District Court "misconstru[ed] the meaning of deliberate abandonment." Id., at 348-349. Because McCleskey included a Massiah claim in his first state petition, dropped it in his first federal petition, and then reasserted it in his second federal petition, he "made a knowing choice not to pursue the claim after having raised it previously" that constituted a prima facie showing of "deliberate abandonment." 890 F. 2d, at 349. The court further found the State's alleged concealment of the Evans statement irrelevant because it "was simply the catalyst that caused counsel to pursue the Massiah claim more vigorously" and did not itself "demonstrate the existence of a Massiah violation." Id., at 350. The court concluded that McCleskey had presented no reason why counsel could not have discovered Worthy earlier. Ibid. Finally, the court ruled that McCleskey's claim did not fall within the ends of justice exception to the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine because any *477 Massiah violation that may have been committed would have been harmless error. 890 F. 2d, at 350-351.

McCleskey petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, alleging numerous errors in the Eleventh Circuit's abuse-of-the-writ analysis. In our order granting the petition, we requested the parties to address the following additional question: "Must the State demonstrate that a claim was deliberately abandoned in an earlier petition for a writ of habeas corpus in order to establish that inclusion of that claim in a subsequent habeas petition constitutes abuse of the writ?" 496 U. S. 904 (1990).

II

The parties agree that the government has the burden of pleading abuse of the writ, and that once the government makes a proper submission, the petitioner must show that he has not abused the writ in seeking habeas relief. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 10-11 (1963); Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 292 (1948). Much confusion exists though, on the standard for determining when a petitioner abuses the writ. Although the standard is central to the proper determination of many federal habeas corpus actions, we have had little occasion to define it. Indeed, there is truth to the observation that we have defined abuse of the writ in an oblique way, through dicta and denials of certiorari petitions or stay applications. See Witt v. Wainwright, 470 U. S. 1039, 1043 (1985) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). Today we give the subject our careful consideration. We begin by tracing the historical development of some of the substantive and procedural aspects of the writ, and then consider the standard for abuse that district courts should apply in actions seeking federal habeas corpus relief.

A

The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81-82, empowered federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners "in custody, under or by colour of the authority of *478 the United States." In the early decades of our new federal system, English common law defined the substantive scope of the writ. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 201-203 (1830). Federal prisoners could use the writ to challenge confinement imposed by a court that lacked jurisdiction, ibid., or detention by the Executive without proper legal process, see Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856).

The common-law limitations on the scope of the writ were subject to various expansive forces, both statutory and judicial. See generally Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 441, 463-499 (1963). The major statutory expansion of the writ occurred in 1867, when Congress extended federal habeas corpus to prisoners held in state custody. Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385. For the most part, however, expansion of the writ has come through judicial decisionmaking. As then-JUSTICE REHNQUIST explained in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 79 (1977), the Court began by interpreting the concept of jurisdictional defect with generosity to include sentences imposed without statutory authorization, Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 176 (1874), and convictions obtained under an unconstitutional statute, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 376-377 (1880). Later, we allowed habeas relief for confinement under a state conviction obtained without adequate procedural protections for the defendant. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 (1915); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923).

Confronting this line of precedents extending the reach of the writ, in Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101 (1942), "the Court openly discarded the concept of jurisdiction — by then more a fiction than anything else — as a touchstone of the availability of federal habeas review, and acknowledged that such review is available for claims of `disregard of the constitutional rights of the accused, and where the writ is the only effective means of preserving his rights.'" Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, at 79 (quoting Waley v. Johnston, supra, at *479 104-105). With the exception of Fourth Amendment violations that a petitioner has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 495 (1976), the writ today appears to extend to all dispositive constitutional claims presented in a proper procedural manner. See Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953); Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, at 79.

One procedural requisite is that a petition not lead to an abuse of the writ. We must next consider the origins and meaning of that rule.

B

At common law, res judicata did not attach to a court's denial of habeas relief. "[A] refusal to discharge on one writ [was] not a bar to the issuance of a new writ." 1 W. Bailey, Habeas Corpus and Special Remedies 206 (1913) (citing cases). "[A] renewed application could be made to every other judge or court in the realm, and each court or judge was bound to consider the question of the prisoner's right to a discharge independently, and not to be influenced by the previous decisions refusing discharge." W. Church, Writ of Habeas Corpus § 386, p. 570 (2d ed. 1893) (hereinafter Church). See, e. g., Ex parte Kaine, 14 F. Cas. 78, 80 (No. 7,597) (CC SDNY 1853); In re Kopel, 148 F. 505, 506 (SDNY 1906). The rule made sense because at common law an order denying habeas relief could not be reviewed. Church 570; L. Yackle, Postconviction Remedies § 151, p. 551 (1981); Goddard, A Note on Habeas Corpus, 65 L. Q. Rev. 30, 32 (1949). Successive petitions served as a substitute for appeal. See W. Duker, A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus 5-6 (1980); Church 570; Goddard, supra, at 35.

As appellate review became available from a decision in habeas refusing to discharge the prisoner, courts began to question the continuing validity of the common-law rule allowing endless successive petitions. Church 602. Some courts rejected the common-law rule, holding a denial of habeas relief *480 res judicata. See, e. g., Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598, 603-605 (1879); McMahon v. Mead, 30 S. D. 515, 518, 139 N. W. 122, 123 (1912); Ex parte Heller, 146 Wis. 517, 524, 131 N. W. 991, 994 (1911). Others adopted a middle position between the extremes of res judicata and endless successive petitions. Justice Field's opinion on circuit in Ex parte Cuddy, 40 F. 62 (CC SD Cal. 1889), exemplifies this balance.

"[W]hile the doctrine of res judicata does not apply, . . . the officers before whom the second application is made may take into consideration the fact that a previous application had been made to another officer and refused; and in some instances that fact may justify a refusal of the second. The action of the court or justice on the second application will naturally be affected to some degree by the character of the court or officer to whom the first application was made, and the fullness of the consideration given to it. . . . In what I have said I refer, of course, to cases where a second application is made upon the same facts presented, or which might have been presented, on the first. The question is entirely different when subsequent occurring events have changed the situation of the petitioner so as in fact to present a new case for consideration. In the present application there are no new facts which did not exist when the first was presented. . . . I am of the opinion that in such a case a second application should not be heard. . . ." Id., at 65-66.

Cf. Ex parte Moebus, 148 F. 39, 40-41 (NH 1906) (second petition disallowed "unless some substantial change in the circumstances had intervened").

We resolved the confusion over the continuing validity of the common-law rule, at least for federal courts, in Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224 (1924), and Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239 (1924). These decisions reaffirmed that res judicata does not apply "to a decision on habeas corpus refusing to discharge the prisoner." Salinger v. Loisel, *481 supra, at 230; see Wong Doo v. United States, supra, at 240. They recognized, however, that the availability of appellate review required a modification of the common-law rule allowing endless applications. As we explained in Salinger:

"In early times when a refusal to discharge was not open to appellate review, courts and judges were accustomed to exercise an independent judgment on each successive application, regardless of the number. But when a right to an appellate review was given the reason for that practice ceased and the practice came to be materially changed . . . ." 265 U. S., at 230-231.

Relying on Justice Field's opinion in Ex parte Cuddy, we announced that second and subsequent petitions should be

"disposed of in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion guided and controlled by a consideration of whatever has a rational bearing on the propriety of the discharge sought. Among the matters which may be considered, and even given controlling weight, are (a) the existence of another remedy, such as a right in ordinary course to an appellate review in the criminal case, and (b) a prior refusal to discharge on a like application." 265 U. S., at 231.

Because the lower court in Salinger had not disposed of the subsequent application for habeas corpus by reliance on dismissal of the prior application, the decision did not present an opportunity to apply the doctrine of abuse of the writ. 265 U. S., at 232. Wong Doo did present the question. There, the District Court had dismissed on res judicata grounds a second petition containing a due process claim that was raised, but not argued, in the first federal habeas petition. The petitioner "had full opportunity to offer proof of [his due process claim] at the hearing on the first petition," and he offered "[n]o reason for not presenting the proof at the outset. . . ." Wong Doo, 265 U. S., at 241. The record of the first petition did not contain proof of the due process claim, *482 but "what [was] said of it there and in the briefs show[ed] that it was accessible all the time." Ibid. In these circumstances, we upheld the dismissal of the second petition. We held that "according to a sound judicial discretion, controlling weight must have been given to the prior refusal." Ibid. So while we rejected res judicata in a strict sense as a basis for dismissing a later habeas action, we made clear that the prior adjudication bore vital relevance to the exercise of the court's discretion in determining whether to consider the petition.

Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266 (1948), the next decision in this line, arose in a somewhat different context from Salinger or Wong Doo. In Price, the petitioner's fourth habeas petition alleged a claim that, arguably at least, was neither the explicit basis of a former petition nor inferable from the facts earlier alleged. The District Court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition without hearing on the sole ground that the claim was not raised in one of the earlier habeas actions. We reversed and remanded, reasoning that the dismissal "precluded a proper development of the issue of the allegedly abusive use of the habeas corpus writ." 334 U. S., at 293. We explained that the State must plead an abuse of the writ with particularity, and that the burden then shifts to petitioner to show that presentation of the new claim does not constitute abuse. Id., at 292. The District Court erred because it dismissed the petition without affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain the basis for raising his claim late. We gave directions for the proper inquiry in the trial court. If the explanation "is inadequate, the court may dismiss the petition without further proceedings." Ibid. But if a petitioner "present[s] adequate reasons for not making the allegation earlier, reasons which make it fair and just for the trial court to overlook the delay," he must be given the opportunity to develop these matters in a hearing. Id., at 291-292. Without considering whether the petitioner had abused the writ, we remanded the case.

*483 Although Price recognized that abuse-of-the-writ principles limit a petitioner's ability to file repetitive petitions, it also contained dicta touching on the standard for abuse that appeared to contradict this point. Price stated that "the three prior refusals to discharge petitioner can have no bearing or weight on the disposition to be made of the new matter raised in the fourth petition." Id., at 289. This proposition ignored the significance of appellate jurisdictional changes, see supra, at 479-480, as well as the general disfavor we had expressed in Salinger and Wong Doo toward endless repetitive petitions. It did not even comport with language in Price itself which recognized that in certain circumstances new claims raised for the first time in a second or subsequent petition should not be entertained. As will become clear, the quoted portion of Price has been ignored in our later decisions.

One month after the Price decision, Congress enacted legislation, which for the first time addressed the issue of repetitive federal habeas corpus petitions:

"No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, or of any State, if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition presents no new ground not theretofore presented and determined, and the judge or court is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry." 28 U. S. C. § 2244 (1964 ed.).

Because § 2244 allowed a district court to dismiss a successive petition that "present[ed] no new ground not theretofore presented and determined," one might have concluded, by negative implication, that Congress denied permission to dismiss any petition that alleged new grounds for relief. Such an interpretation would have superseded the judicial principles *484 recognizing that claims not raised or litigated in a prior petition could, when raised in a later petition, constitute abuse. But the Reviser's Note to the 1948 statute made clear that as a general matter Congress did not intend the new section to disrupt the judicial evolution of habeas principles, 28 U. S. C. § 2244 (1964 ed.) (Reviser's Note), and we confirmed in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S., at 11-12, that Congress' silence on the standard for abuse of the writ involving a new claim was "not intended to foreclose judicial application of the abuse-of-writ principle as developed in Wong Doo and Price."

Sanders also recognized our special responsibility in the development of habeas corpus with respect to another provision of the 1948 revision of the judicial code, 28 U. S. C. § 2255 (1964 ed.). The statute created a new postconviction remedy for federal prisoners with a provision for repetitive petitions different from the one found in § 2244. While § 2244 permitted dismissal of subsequent habeas petitions that "present[ed] no new ground not theretofore presented and determined," § 2255 allowed a federal district court to refuse to entertain a subsequent petition seeking "similar relief." On its face, § 2255 appeared to announce a much stricter abuse-of-the-writ standard than its counterpart in § 2244. We concluded in Sanders, however, that the language in § 2255 "cannot be taken literally," and construed it to be the "material equivalent" of the abuse standard in § 2244. Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S., at 13-14.

In addition to answering these questions, Sanders undertook a more general "formulation of basic rules to guide the lower federal courts" concerning the doctrine of abuse of the writ. Id., at 15. After reiterating that the government must plead abuse of the writ and the petitioner must refute a well-pleaded allegation, Sanders addressed the d