James Mario Pridgen v. Shannon the District Attorney of the County of Lancaster the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “when the Rule 60(b) motion seeks to collaterally attack the petitioner's underlying conviction, the motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition.”
• holding that a district court may address a Rule 60(b) motion that challenges the proceedings surrounding an earlier habeas judgment rather than the underlying state conviction itself
• holding that a district court “properly exercised jurisdiction” over part of a Rule 60(b) motion where the movant’s argument constituted “an attack on the habeas proceeding” and not the “underlying state conviction”
• holding that a Rule 60 motion may be adjudicated if its “factual predicate . . . attacks the manner in which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction”
• holding trial court “properly exercised jurisdiction” over a Rule 60(b) motion, without the movant having first obtained approval under § 2244(b), where movant’s argument was “an attack on the habeas proceeding, rather than on [his] underlying state conviction”
• explaining that we may only consider the substance of a Rule 60(b) motion “in those instances in which the factual predicate of [the] motion attacks the manner in which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).