Marion Calvin Tucker v. Peter Carlson, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 13 civil rights action is vehicle for civil rights violations whereas a habeas petition challenges 14 the “fact or duration” of confinement
• holding that a federal prisoner challenging the execution of his sentence must bring a § 2241 habeas petition, whereas a prisoner 28 complaining of civil rights violations must bring a Bivens action
• concluding that challenges to “the manner in which [a] sentence was executed,” or to “the fact or duration of . . . confinement,” are properly brought in habeas petitions pursuant to Section 2241
• concluding that challenges to “the manner in which [a] sentence was executed,” or to “the fact or duration of . . . confinement,” are properly brought in habeas petitions pursuant to Section 2241
• concluding that challenges to “the manner in which [a] sentence was executed,” 12 | orto “the fact or duration of ... confinement,” are properly brought in habeas petitions pursuant to 13 | § 2241
• concluding that challenges to “the manner in which [a] sentence was 27 executed,” or to “the fact or duration of . . . confinement,” are properly brought in 28 habeas petitions pursuant to Section 2241

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).