No. 24-7234

In Re David Diehl

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2025-05-16
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: district-court-jurisdiction federal-prisoners habeas-corpus post-conviction-relief second-successive-claims statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-06-05
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)

ONE Federal habeas law divides prisoners seeking post-conviction relief into two groups. Those in state custody file "habeas corpus applications" under 28 U.S.C. §2254. Those in federal custody file "motions to vacate" under 28 U.S.C. §2255. ' A seperate statutory provision instructs district courts to dismiss any "claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under 2254 that was presented in a prior application." 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(l). Whether the bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to claims presented by federal presoners in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. QUESTION TWO Whether fraud and deceit per Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States . 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Fed. R.and Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6) are subject to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) .

Docket Entries

2025-06-06
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2025-05-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/5/2025.
2025-05-03

Attorneys

Diehl, In Re David
David A. Diehl — Petitioner