Angelo Torres v. Daniel Senkowski, Superintendent

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the district court should have transferred Torres's application to this Court, rather than deciding it on the merits.”
• holding that the Second Circuit \ha[s] not yet decided whether applying AEDPA's gatekeeping requirements in these circumstances would create an impermissible retroactive affect\
• noting that the Circuit has “held that a district court must transfer uncertified successive motions to [the Circuit] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the provision authorizing transfer to cure want of jurisdiction”
• noting its previous holding that “a district court must transfer uncertified successive motions to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631”
• discussing procedures applicable to successive habeas petitions brought under § 2255
• The AEDPA “allocates jurisdiction to the courts of appeals, not the district courts, to authorize successive habeas motions or applications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).