Rice v. Rivera

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[e]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that “[e]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that “it is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255”
• noting that the Supreme Court has concluded “that Rule 33 is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule” and signaled “its implicit approval of a district court’s jurisdiction to entertain an untimely Rule 33 motion”
• providing that if a federal prisoner brings a § 2241 petition that does not fall within the scope of the savings clause, the district court must dismiss the unauthorized habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction
• “Claim-processing rules ... are to be rigidly applied when invoked by a litigant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).