Hooker v. Sivley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to construe a § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion because petitioner had not received prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive § 2255 motion
• holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to construe a § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion because petitioner had not received prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive § 2255 motion
• holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to construe a § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion because petitioner had not received prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive § 2255 motion
• holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to construe a § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion because petitioner had not received prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive § 2255 motion
• holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to construe a Section 2241 petition as a Section 2255 motion because petitioner had not received prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive Section 2255 motion
• noting that the petitioner was denied permission to file a second or successive motion “because his [Bailey] claim did not involve . . . a new rule of constitutional law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).