No. 19-7640
Phillip Auston Carrier v. Billy Romero, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 appellate-review congress-intent consent constitutional-law federal-appellate-court federal-prosecutor federal-prosecutor-consent gatekeeping-role gatekeeping-standard habeas-corpus habeas-corpus-2255-motion prosecutorial-consent second-or-successive-petition second-petition section-2255
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
ERISA DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the remedy by motion authorized by 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)(2) is rendered inadequate or ineffective
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether “the remedy by motion” authorized by 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)(2) is rendered “inadequate or ineffective” under §2255(e) when a federal appellate court makes the primary criterion for authorizing a second §2255 petition the federal prosecutor's consent to it? 2. Whether a Circuit Court of Appeals requirement that a prisoner asking to file a second §2255 petition must show a new rule of Constitutional law is sufficient to provide relief exceeds the gatekeeping role Congress intended in §2255(h)(2)? 2
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 12, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent