Charles Wright v. Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a Rule 60(b) motion was diligently filed when done within twelve months of Martinez
• noting that a Rule 60(b) motion was diligently filed when done within twelve months of Martinez
• noting that a Rule 60(b) motion was diligently filed when done within twelve months of a change in the law
• recognizing Rule 60(b) movant’s diligence in filing within 12 months of Supreme Court decision but denying motion because “diligence alone, while a factor to be considered, is not enough to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances in light of the other factors that counsel against Rule 60(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).