No. 18-7300
Michael L. Millis v. Stephen Kallis, Warden
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 28-USC-2241 28-usc-2255 custodian custody due-process federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus jurisdiction jurisdictional-issue prisoner-petition savings-clause section-2241 section-2255 transfer-of-venue
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Privacy
HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the correct interpretation of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Questions Presented Ss 1. What is the correct interpretation of the savings clause, in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)? ~ a , 2. ° Based on the correct interpretation of section 2255(e), — . is Millis entitled to relief in this case? 3. . Did the district court in Kentucky exceed its’ jurisdiction in denying Millis's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, where Millis is ; incarcerated in Illinois, and the district court in Kentucky lacks jurisdiction over his custodian? : 4. Should Millis's section 2241 petition be transferred back to the district court in Illinois, where he is confined? . . ; —
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-03-13
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-23
Waiver of right of respondent Stephen Kallis, Warden to respond filed.
2019-01-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2019)
Attorneys
Stephen Kallis, Warden
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent