Duluth Sda Church v. Jane Doe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that § 2254 is the exclusive means for a person to challenge state custody pursuant to judgment of a state court
• holding that § 2254 was the proper vehicle for a state prisoner to challenge loss of good time credit in a prison disciplinary proceeding
• holding that “the PLRA does not apply to any requests for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, or 2255”
• holding that “if a case is properly filed as an action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, or 2255, it is not a ‘civil action’ to which the PLRA applies.”
• holding that state prisoners challenging prison disciplinary proceedings need not obtain a certificate of appealability because the challenged detention does not \arise[ ] out of process issued by a State court.\
• holding that PLRA does not apply to § 2241 or § 2254 petitions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).