Williams v. Chatman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a petitioner did not obtain authorization to file a successive habeas petition, “the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the successive petition, and therefore could not issue a COA with respect to any of these claims.”
• affirming that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ap- ply in habeas proceedings unless they are inconsistent with appli- cable statutory law
• stating that the district court could not issue a certificate of appealability when it lacked jurisdiction over a successive § 2254 petition
• holding that the petitioner’s claim in a self-styled Rule 60(b
• stating that the district court could not issue a COA when it lacked jurisdiction over a successive § 2254 petition
• stating that a COA ordinarily is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2254 proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).