Schad v. Ryan

I would hold that the allegation of Schad’s serious mental illness at- the time he committed his offense constitutes a new ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In reaching a contrary result, the majority adopts an erroneous view of how Schad’s new allegation relates to his old ineffective assistance claim — and thus misses the fundamental difference between Schad’s two claims. This error leads the majority to dismiss Schad’s motion by deeming it a second or successive petition. Because Schad in fact presents a new claim that satisfies the standard for relief from judgment under Federal…