Johnny Peoples v. Bruce Chatman

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 state prisoner’s § 2241 petition was subject to the one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1)
• “[T]his court has explicitly held that the § 2244 statute of limitations applies to petitions governed by § 2254.”
• “[T]his court has explicitly held that the § 2244 statute of limitations applies to petitions governed by § 2254.”
• “[T]his court has explicitly held that the § 2244 statute of limitations applies to petitions governed by § 2254.”
• “Because there is a single habeas corpus remedy for those imprisoned pursuant to a State court judgment (authorized by § 2241 but subject to all of the restrictions of § 2254
• “Because there is a single habeas corpus remedy for those imprisoned pursuant to a State court judgment (authorized by § 2241 but subject to all of the restrictions of § 2254), and because one of those restrictions is the one-year statute of limitations set out in § 2244(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).