McKnight v. United States
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, Senior District Judge:
This case, commenced as a § 2255 action, has been peppered by Petitioner’s filings that evinced his, and has caused Respondent’s, confusion. Petitioner’s § 2255 claims will be denied, and no certificate of appealability will issue. But, as explained later, there are also three other lines of habeas claims litigated here. No habeas petitioner can challenge different determinations in a single action. “Habe-as Rules do not envision ... a lump-sum challenge tó the circumstances which a litigant might find [himself] in. Rather, [under] Habeas Rule 2(e),…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- ARCHIE v. SMITHDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2021
- Adrian Robinson v. Kevin Punturi, et al.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2026
- BACON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022
- BORBON v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARDDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- BUSSINGER v. GRAMPDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.