Stanko v. Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that common law doctrines of successive and abusive writs grant district courts discretion to refuse to consider § 2241 petitions that (1) relitigate previously resolved claims or (2) raise claims that could have been brought in a previous petition
• concluding federal inmate did not need preauthorization to file successive § 2241 petition because § 2244(b) explicitly refers to § 2254 petitions
• concluding a prisoner did not need preauthorization to file a successive § 2241 petition because § 2244(b) explicitly refers to § 2254 petitions
• holding “the abuse of the writ doctrine continued to apply to habeas petitions that raised new grounds for relief’ even after the statutory amendment of § 2244
• applying harmless error analysis to sua sponte dismissal when the petitioner had other opportunities to plead the validity of his petition
• “a prisoner challenging the administration of his sentence will not be relying on newly discovered evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).