Legal Opinion
Mathilde Muniz v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 2, 2001No. 2000PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Per curiam
Petitioner Mathilde Muniz moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) & 2255 for an order authorizing the District Court to consider a “second or successive” petition 1 for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As it happens, however, Muniz’s instant petition is not, in fact, a “second or successive” petition within the meaning of §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) & 2255 at all. Rather, since her previous petition was not adjudicated on the merits but rather was dismissed on technical procedural grounds, we hold that the instant petition properly is characterized as a first petition. We therefore…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- McCleskey v. ZantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- In Re Initial Public Offering Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Clarence Ray Allen v. Steven W. Ornoski, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Jay Clint Crouch v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board Leroy Brownlee, Chairman.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2001
- Robert Benchoff v. Raymond ColleranCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Marcus Graham v. Joseph M. Costello, Esq., SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.