In the case of Tana Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary v. Dwayne Earl Bartholomew (1995), the Supreme Court addressed whether a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition was "second or successive" under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b). Bartholomew had previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction which was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. After exhausting these remedies, he refiled his federal habeas petition and it was denied on its merits by both district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as being second or successive. The Supreme Court reversed this decision unanimously in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court held that since Bartholomew’s first application was dismissed due to procedural grounds rather than on its merits, his subsequent application should not be considered “second or successive”. Therefore, it did not violate Section 2244(b)’s gatekeeping provisions against abusive petitions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tana Wood v. Dwayne Earl Bartholomew argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which granted habeas corpus relief to Bartholomew, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were procedural errors made by the state courts during Bartholomew's trial and sentencing for murder but disagreed with the majority’s view that these errors had substantial and injurious effect or influence on jury's verdict. They contended that any error committed was harmless beyond reasonable doubt as it did not contribute to his conviction or punishment given overwhelming evidence against him including eyewitness testimony and physical evidence linking him directly to crime scene. Therefore, they opined federal courts should defer more often than not to state court decisions unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights which wasn't evident here according them.