In Re: Shane McClaine Cain, Movant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim that had not arisen at the time of the previous petition is not barred by § 2244(b)
• same where petitioner challenged a prison disciplinary conviction and his previous petition challenged Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s good-time policy.
• “[A] later petition is successive when it ... constitutes an abuse of the writ.”
• “[A] prisoner’s application is not second or successive simply because it follows an earlier federal petition.”
• challenge to prison disciplinary decision was not second or successive because it occurred after petitioner filed his initial habeas BROWN V. MUNIZ 19 Panetti’s limited exception to § 2244(b) comports with the plain text of § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i
• “[A] later petition is successive when it: (1) raises a claim challenging the petitioner’s conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition; or (2) otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).