No. 24-6716

Deepak Deshpande v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-03-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review federal-prisoners habeas-corpus post-conviction-relief section-2244 section-2255
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-04-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the bar in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(1) applies to claims presented by Federal Prisoners in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. §2255

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

are as follows : (1) . Wat is the peeper mamer of ensuring flat the remedy offered in the name of section 2255 las bean adequate and effective to test the legality of the Federal Prisoner's detention? (2) . Wat source should the court of appeals review in determining vhether or not to grant the CEA and simultaneously protect the party presentation principles of our adversarial system? (3) . Nhy a court of appeals reach the merits of appeal without the jurisdiction of the 034? Federal Habeas law divides Prisoners seeking post-conviction relief into two groups. Those in state custody file "habeas corpus application" under 28 U.S.C. §2254. Those in the Federal custody file "Motion to Vacate" under 28 U.S.C. §2255. A separate statutory provision instructs the district courts to dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under Section 2254 that was presented in a prior application, 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(l). The question presented under this paradigm is : (4) . Wiether the bar in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(l) applies to claims presented by Federal Prisoners in a second or successive notion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. §2255? (i). CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED^PER SONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE The following Persons have an interest in the outcome of the 1Andtejko, Nioole M., Assistant U.S. Attorney ;\ ^rar, cS)er?,J0^ili^H, Aaaiatant U'SAttorney, Deputy Chief, Appellate Division ; CiHng, Bnily C.L. , Assistant U.S. Attorney, Appellate Division ; 4. Cream, Anita M., Assistant U.S. Attorney ; 5. Deshpanda, Daqpak. fetitioner ;; 6. Gtandy, Todd B., Assistant U.S. Attorney ; 7. ffcncfcerg, Roger B-, U.S. Attomsy ; 8. f&tfield, Victoria E., ESQ ; 9. HqppnBn, Karin, Footer Acting U.S. Attorn^; 10. Irick, Hen. Daniel C., United States Magistrate Judge ; 11. Joffe, David Jonathan, ESQ ; i2Kelly, Hon. Gregory J., United States Magistrate Judge (retired); 13. Laurie, Shannon R., Assistant U.S. Attorney ; 14. Lopez, Maria Chapa, Former U.S. Attorney ; 15. Mendoza, Hon. Carlos E., United States District Judge ; 16. Minor Victim whose identity is protected ; 17. Muench, James A., Assistant U.S. Attorney ; 18. O'Brian, I'ferk J., E3Q ; 19. Price, Hon. Leslie Hoffhan, United States Magistrate Judge ; 20. Rhodes, David P., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division 21. Spaulding, Hon. Karla B., United States Magistrate Judge (retired) ; 22. Sweeney, Sara C., Assistant U.S. Attorney ; and, 23. No other publicly traded entity or enrpaation has an interest in the cutoore of this Appeal.STATEMENT. case : CIP

Docket Entries

2025-04-07
Petition DENIED.
2025-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/4/2025.
2025-03-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Deepak Deshpande
Deepak Deshpande — Petitioner
United States
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent