State ex rel. Woodson v. Black

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that current § 2255 application is not successive if prior application was originally filed as Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion and district court converted it without notice to applicant
• recognizing that “a district 15 court’s recharacterization could have a detrimental impact on the prisoner”
• holding that when a court recharacterizes a motion filed by a pro se petitioner as a § 2255 motion without warning, a subsequent § 2255 motion filed by petitioner is not “second or successive”
• holding that district court must warn pro se litigant of intent to recharacterize pleading as § 2255 motion, explain procedural consequences, and provide litigant opportunity to respond
• holding that the bar on “second or successive” petitions does not apply where the court recharacterizes a motion as one under Section 2255 without notice to the petitioner
• recognizing that federal courts may “recharacterize” a pro se litigant’s motion “to create a better correspondence 2 between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).