Woodrow Fleming 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 a district court must review pro se Section 2255 motions “with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed”
• stating that cases brought by pro se plaintiffs must be reviewed “with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed”
• stating that a coram nobis petitioner must show that he “continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ” (quoting Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996))
• applying a similar three-factor test that a coram nobis petitioner must establish that “1
• “Just as pro se complaints ‘must be liberally construed,’ a district court must review a pro se petition . . . ‘with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed[.]’”
• a coram nobis petitioner must show that she “continues to suffer legal consequences from [her] conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ” (quoting Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).