George Gage v. Kevin Chappell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that claims for which the factual predicate existed at the time of the first habeas petition qualify as second or successive
• noting that the petitioner’s “argument for exempting his Brady claim from the § 2244(b)(2) requirements has some merit,” though the Court was bound to follow circuit precedent in concluding otherwise
• noting that claims for 2 It is unclear if Petitioner is attempting to allege that a court clerk erred in one of his prior cases. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3.
• explaining that a Brady claim is subject to 5 the AEDPA’s bar against successive habeas petitions when the factual predicate of the 6 Brady claim existed at the time of the first federal habeas petition
• claims for which the 2 factual predicate existed at the time of the first habeas petition qualify as second or successive
• claims for which the factual predicate existed at the time of the first habeas petition qualify as second or successive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).