Fed.Appx. 478 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 2 . See Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1999) (allegations of "new evidence that give[] more credence” to a previous claim are still construed as raising the prior claim). Furthermore, these new evidentiary details would be barred by § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) since Pruett has not shown how any of these facts could not have been discovered previously even by exercising due diligence. For instance, the affidavit regarding the tape evidence was executed just four days after he moved to file a successive habeas petition in 2015. 3 . Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009); see also Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58, 109
holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that a parentchild relationship between two independent adults does not invoke constitutional companionship interests and noting in dicta that even if it were to hold that right existed mere negligence does not implicate the due process clause and the mother had not alleged that the officer who shot her adult son acted with more than negligence concerning her rights