9th Cir.;
15-71566
The court of appeals denied an application to file a second or successive petition as unnecessary and transferred the case back to the district court. The court held that a habeas petition challenging a state court denial of a post-judgment petition for resentencing under California’s Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 was not a “second or successive petition” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2254, and did not require the court of appeals’ permission for filing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
