No. 25-5053

Damar D. Ruffin v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction certiorari-review habeas-corpus second-successive-motion statutory-interpretation transfer-order
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) precludes the Supreme Court from reviewing a circuit court's dismissal of an appeal regarding a transfer order in a second-in-time § 2255 motion

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

is whether a circuit court errs in finding that a transfer order is not appealable, dismisses a petitioner’s appeal of the district court’s decision that the petitioner’s filing was not a leg itimate second-in-time § 2255 motion based on new facts, and fold the issue of the appropriateness of the transfer order into the § 2244 application proceeding . The circuit court may wait bey ond the 90 day s to petition this Court for review of the dismissal of the appeal of the transfer order, deny the § 2244 application and affirm the district court’s transfer. I f 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) applies, the Court is precluded from hearing Petitioner’s appeal of the district court’s transfer order. Petitioner notes that the Court has accepted review of a similar question whether “28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the g rant or denial of an authoriz ation by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bowe v. United States , No. 24-5438. i

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-10-08
Brief of United States in opposition submitted.
2025-10-08
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2025-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 8, 2025.
2025-08-20
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-08-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 8, 2025 to October 8, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-07-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 8, 2025.
2025-07-29
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-07-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 7, 2025 to September 8, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-06-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Damar Ruffin
Jeffrey Michael BrandtRobinson & Brandt, P.S.C., Petitioner
Jeffrey Michael BrandtRobinson & Brandt, P.S.C., Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Moez Mansoor KabaHueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent