Habeas corpus; Motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition under 28 USC § 2254; Reliance on a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law; §§ 2244(b)(2)(A) & (b)(3)(C); Miller v. Alabama; Whether petitioner sought a “frivolous extension” of Miller to persons who were 18 years old at the time of their crimes; United States v Marshall

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] In an order newly designated for publication, the court denied petitioner-Manning the right to file a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on a “new rule of constitutional law” where his argument that Miller should be extended to 18-year-olds did “not show ‘possible merit’ . . . .” Manning was convicted of first-degree murder, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, and felony-firearm. He had previously filed habeas petitions without success. In this petition, he claimed that he could rely “‘on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.’” He relied on Miller, where the Supreme Court “held that defendants ‘under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes’ cannot be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” The court noted that the “Supreme Court has since made clear that Miller announced a ‘new rule’ of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.” In his motion, Manning sought “to extend Miller’s new rule to persons who (like Manning) were 18 years old at the time of their offense.” However, the court concluded that his successive petition sought a “frivolous extension” of Miller. Miller applies to those individuals “under 18” at the time of their crimes, and the court held in Marshall that an individual’s 18th “‘birthday marks [a] bright line’ between juveniles and adults.” It has also made this “same point in many similar orders denying motions to file a second or successive habeas petition seeking an extension of Miller to those who were 18 or older at the time of their offense.”