Queen v. Miner

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 habeas petitioner “may not raise new claims that could have been resolved in a previous action”
• discussing that § 2244(a) barred a petitioner’s successive § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge the same institutional conviction he challenged in a prior § 2241 petition
• discussing that § 2244(a) barred a petitioner’s successive § 2241 petition, in which the petitioner had sought to challenge the same institutional conviction that he had challenged in a prior § 2241 petition
• discussing that § 2244(a) barred a petitioner’s successive § 2241 petition, in which the petitioner had sought to challenge the same institutional conviction that he had challenged in a prior § 2241 petition
• noting that a challenge to a disciplinary action resulting in the loss of good-conduct time is properly brought pursuant to Section 2241, because “the action could affect the duration of the petitioner’s sentence” (citations omitted)
• noting that a challenge to a disciplinary action resulting in the loss of good-conduct time is properly brought pursuant to Section 2241, because “the action could affect the duration of the petitioner’s sentence” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).