Supreme Court· 6/23/2005

Mayle v. Felix

Citations

545 U.S. 644
125 S. Ct. 2562
162 L. Ed. 2d 582
2005 U.S. LEXIS 5016

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that claims in petitioner’s amended habeas corpus petition did not “relate back” to initial petition within the meaning of Rule 15(c)(2), and were therefore barred by applicable one year statute of limitations
ruling that the pleading standard under Habeas Corpus Rule 2 “is more demanding” than Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a
concluding that Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to amend habeas petitions
holding that a § 2255 petitioner must “include an affidavit setting forth the specific basis for relief.”
recognizing that Rule 15 similarly applies in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceedings
concluding that an amended habeas petition does not \relate back” if \it asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

350 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.