Legal Opinion
Brennan v. Wall
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided May 4, 2004No. 02-2642PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
Pro se petitioner Michael Brennan (“Brennan”), a state prisoner, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2241 petition. The district court treated the filing as a § 2254 petition and dismissed it as nonconforming, successive, and untimely. We already have held that Brennan may not bring a “second or successive” § 2254 petition because he cannot satisfy the requirements of § 2244(b). Therefore, the only question before us is whether the district court properly denied relief under § 2241 and § 1651. Our review is de novo. Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 202 (1st Cir.2003).…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Joseph Coady v. Donald T. Vaughn the District Attorney of the County of Montgomery the Attorney General of the State of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Carlisle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Alonzo Cook v. New York State Division of Parole, and New York State Board of ParoleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Daniel Clark Medberry v. James CrosbyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
- Commerce Bank Harris Savings Association v. Mountain View Village, Inc. Property Management, Inc., Mountain View Village, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gonzalez-Fuentes v. MolinaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
- Bonilla v. WainwrightDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Brennan v. Wall, Director, Rhode Island Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Carrier v. DouglasDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
- DENBOW v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2020
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.