Schneider v. McDaniel

Claims in amended habeas petitions must "arise out of a common core of operative facts" from the original petition's claims.

Schneider appeals his habeas corpus petition pursuant to a certificate of appealability by the district court. The Court refuses to expand the certificate, only considering the grounds at issue therein. Firstly, Schneider contests "the trial court's denial of the motion for a mistrial based on [his co-defendant]'s Aryan Brotherhood testimony," which he claims violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court affirms the State Supreme Court's rulings that this testimony was admissible when not offered by the State and that even if its admission was in error, such error was harmless. Secondly, Schneider contests the district court's "holding that [4 Grounds] of the First Amended Petition do not relate back to the original petition." The Court reviews whether the amended claims "assert a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth." Ruling that even where "both theories share one fact: that [co-defendant] testified at Schneider's trail, that is not sufficient to conclude that they arise out of a common core of operative facts," the Court affirms the district court's holding regarding all amended claims. Finally, the Court affirms the lower holding that Schneider's mental illness should not excuse him from the procedural defaults of his 2 remaining claims. AFFIRMED.