Jones, J. v. Sunoco, of Hunt Oil Co.

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 subsequent habeas petition is not ‘second or successive’ under AEDPA when a petitioner files such a petition prior to her exhaustion of appellate remedies with respect to the denial of her initial habeas petition”
• holding “that AEDPA ensures” a habeas petitioner “one full opportunity to seek collateral review” (quoting Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))
• construing a petition filed with this Court during an appeal as a motion to amend
• “Thus, the resolution of the merits of the ‘motion to amend’ should remain stayed pending the resolution of the appeal with respect to the initial habeas petition.”
• “[A] Rule 60(b) motion that raises a claim attacking the underlying criminal judgment must be a second or successive petition . . .” (quoting Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 413 (3d Cir. 2011))
• same in § 2255 context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).