No. 25-6286

Wilfredo Feliciano-Rodriguez v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2025-12-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-procedure federal-statute habeas-corpus judicial-discretion statutory-interpretation time-limit
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2026-01-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Appellate Court can violate 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(D) by treating the 30-day time limit as a guideline rather than a mandatory requirement

Question Presented (from Petition)

Is the Appellate Court able to violate 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(D) arguing that this statute is not mandatory but a simple guideline? It is incontrovertible that 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(D) 30 days time limit is mandatory when it provides: "Shall grant or deny" ... "not later" than 30 days. What are the legal consequences of violating 28 U.S'.G. §2244(b)(3)(D) exceeding the maximum 30 days limit? ■. How does a misinterpretation of 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(D) affect petitioners seeking to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motions? This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) to review, a petition for a writ of certoriari, the Court of Appeals has not decided on the applica tion for authorizing to file a second or successive motion under §2255. In light of a statute providing that "[t]he grant or denial authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall 'grant or deny'" ... "not later than 30-days." i

Docket Entries

2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-11-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 5, 2026)

Attorneys

United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Wilfredo Feliciano-Rodriguez
Wilfredo Feliciano-Rodriguez — Petitioner
Wilfredo Feliciano-Rodriguez — Petitioner