Perez v. Gipson

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 Rule 60(b) motion did not raise a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel—and thus was not an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition—where the original § 2254 petition raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
• explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion is properly used to “raise[] procedural error in [a] previous federal court ruling” (emphasis added)
• stating that there “must be more than silence” for a federal court to conclude that the state court reached the merits of a petitioner’s federal claims
• “A Rule 60(b) motion should be denied if it challenges on the merits an earlier denial of habeas relief.”
• “We will not interpret that same perfunctory order as having reached the merits of [the Wiggins] issue the Texas court at most has identified it might one day reach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).