Massoumi v. Ganju

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the statute “sharply re‐ strict[s] a second or successive motion to narrow circum‐ stances”
• explaining that the statute “sharply re‐ strict[s] a second or successive motion to narrow circum‐ stances”
• stating, “[w]ithout authorization from the court of appeals, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear” a second or successive motion under § 2255
• holding “a second-in-time motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is barred as ‘second or successive’ when a prisoner has been resentenced pursuant to a successful first section 2255 motion, and the new motion challenges only the underlying conviction, not the resentencing”
• relying on pre- Magwood circuit precedent and determining Magwood did not address the issue
• “Without authorization from the court of appeals, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear [a successive section 2255 motion].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).