Sixth Circuit· 9/4/2014

Deidre Clark v. United States

Citations

764 F.3d 653
2014 FED App. 0225P
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17101
2014 WL 4357568

How courts have described this case

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

holding that an attempt to amend or supplement a prior habeas petition after its final adjudication is “really a second or successive habeas petition” “irrespective of its characterization.”
explaining that when the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea and a guilty plea, “claims first presented in [the] postjudgment second motion to amend do not demonstrate that her conviction or indictment constituted ‘manifest injustice.’” (citation omitted)
“[A] motion to amend a § 2255 motion [attacking a sentence] is generally governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“A habeas petition submitted during the pendency of an initial § 2255 motion should be construed as a motion to amend the initial motion.”
“This court has not squarely considered whether mental illness can constitute cause excusing procedural default.”
a motion seeking to assert a new claim “is not a second or successive § 2255 motion” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Siler, Gilman, Gibbons

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.