Larry Hutcherson v. Bob Riley

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a petitioner must satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) after his original § 2254 petition is dismissed as untimely
• explaining that a petitioner must satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) after his original § 2254 petition is dismissed as untimely
• explaining that a petitioner must satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) after his original § 2254 7 petition is dismissed as untimely
• explaining that when a prisoner raises “any challenge to the lawfulness of confinement or the particulars affecting its duration, his claim falls solely within the province of habeas corpus under § 2254.”
• concluding federal habeas corpus statutes and § 1983 “are mutually exclusive: if a claim can be raised in a federal habeas petition, that same claim cannot be raised in a § 1983 civil rights action
• describing Preiser line of cases as holding that habeas and section 1983 are “mutually exclusive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).