In re Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.3d 1173 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gonzalez v. Crosby · In re Cline · Spitznas v. Boone · United States v. Nelson · South Fork Band v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] 60(b) motion is a second or successive [§ 2255 filing] if it in substance or effect asserts or reasserts a[ ] basis for relief from the [ ] underlying [sentence]. Conversely, it is [not a second or successive § 2255 filing] if it either (1) challenges only a procedural ruling of the [district] court which precluded a merits determination of the [§ 2255 motion]; or (2) challenges a defect in the integrity of the [§ 2255] proceeding, provided that such a challenge does not itself lead inextricably to a merits-based attack on the disposition of a prior [§ 2255 filing].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing is essentially the equivalent of a dismissal for failure to state a claim or a summary judgment, because the district court has concluded that the record does not entitle the prisoner to relief; either the prisoner has failed to allege facts on which relief could be predicated, or the record conclusively contradicts the prisoner’s allegations. Thus, there could be no error in denying an evidentiary hearing unless the district court made an incorrect merits determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In analyzing whether Rule 60(b) arguments require authorization under § 2255(h), the first step is to determine whether the motion asserts non-merits Rule 60(b) arguments (which this court has referred to as a ‘true’ 60(b) motion) or asserts merits-focused, second or successive claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.