Rickey L. Potts v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the first motion counted because the movant withdrew it after “seeing the handwriting on the wall” that his motion would fail on the merits
• holding that a petitioner’s voluntary withdrawal of a prior petition after receiving a strongly-argued government response brief, conferring with his attorney, and apparently realizing the petition was “doomed” rendered a subsequent petition successive under § 2244
• stating that “[t]he essential point is that a prisoner is entitled to one unencum bered opportunity to receive a decision on the merits.”
• contrasting cases that are second or successive petitions with those that are not
• section 2255 petitioner cannot avoid second-or-successive-petition bar by withdrawing first petition after he becomes aware that petition will be denied on the merits
• “essential point is that a prisoner is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to receive a decision on the merits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).