No. 19-8179
IFP
Tags: 28-usc-2244 capital-defendant court-of-appeals habeas-corpus jurisdiction jurisdictional-limits merits-adjudication retroactive-law statutory-interpretation successive-petitions
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2020-06-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a capital defendant requests from a court of appeals authorization to file in a district court a second or successive habeas petition presenting a newly-exhausted claim arising from a new, retroactive law, does a court of appeals exceed its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) when it decides the merits of the claim?
Question Presented (from Petition)
Questions Presented 1. When a capital defendant requests from a court of appeals authorization to file in a district court a second or successive habeas petition presenting a newly-exhausted claim arising from a new, retroactive law, does a court of appeals exceed its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) when it decides the merits of the claim? i
Docket Entries
2020-06-08
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.
2020-05-08
Reply of petitioner In Re Harold Nichols filed.
2020-04-30
Brief of respondent Tony Mays in opposition filed.
2020-04-01
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
Attorneys
Tony Mays
John Henry Bledsoe III — Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent
John Henry Bledsoe III — Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent