In Re Lindsey
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
James Earl Lindsey, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion claiming that the district court erred in deciding his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without granting him an evidentiary hearing. The district court concluded that the claims required authorization under § 2255(h) as a second or successive motion and transferred the motion to this court. Mr. Lindsey has moved to remand, arguing that he challenges only the integrity of the federal proceedings, and thus his assertions do not require authorization under § 2255(h). We disagree, and therefore we deny the…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- In Re ClineCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Spitznas v. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
4Cited by47 opinions
- Williams v. ThalerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. SpringerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- United States v. VialvaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Carlos HernandesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- In re: AppersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2012
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.