Edward J. Zakrzewski, II v. James McDonough

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Rule 60(b) motion alleging only fraud upon the court was not successive under Gonzalez
• “Petitioner’s motion does not assert or reassert allegations of error in his state convictions. Thus, Petitioner’s 60(b) motion is not a second or successive habeas petition, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider the motion and to decide its merits.”
• habeas petitioner's use of Rule 60(b) allowed
• habeas petitioner's use of Rule 60(b) allowed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).