Dulworth v. Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• holding process’ or ‘circumstances . . . that render such process ineffective to protect the [applicant’s] rights.’” Selsor v. Workman, 644 F.3d 984, 1026 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii)
• noting other circuits require a COA to appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion because such denials are final orders
• noting other circuits require a COA to appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion because such denials are final orders
• explaining appellate court looks to underlying habeas petition in determining whether valid-constitutional-claim prong of Slack test is satisfied in appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion
• “[I]n our judgment all appeals from final orders in habeas cases, of whatever type, should be required to meet the COA standard to proceed.”
• “[A] state prisoner seeking to appeal the denial of habeas relief in a § 2241 proceeding must obtain a COA to appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).