§Why CasetextPricing

Doyle v. Commonwealth of Masachusetts et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

42 Cited authorities

  1. Holland v. Florida

    560 U.S. 631 (2010)   Cited 14,033 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2254 does not preclude equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based on attorney misconduct in habeas proceedings

  2. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,205 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

  3. Rumsfeld v. Padilla

    542 U.S. 426 (2004)   Cited 4,455 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that jurisdiction under § 2241(b) lies only in the district of confinement

  4. Edwards v. Carpenter

    529 U.S. 446 (2000)   Cited 5,132 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ineffective assistance claim can only supply cause to overcome the procedural default of another constitutional claim if the petitioner can show that cause and prejudice excused the procedural default of the ineffective assistance claim itself

  5. Rose v. Lundy

    455 U.S. 509 (1982)   Cited 13,242 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts ordinarily must dismiss a § 2254 petition without prejudice if the petitioner has not exhausted his state postconviction remedies

  6. Artuz v. Bennett

    531 U.S. 4 (2000)   Cited 3,722 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state post-conviction action is "properly filed" for § 2244(d) purposes "when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings," such as "the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee" (footnote omitted)

  7. Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

    498 U.S. 89 (1990)   Cited 4,536 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statutory time limit with the same characteristics is subject to equitable tolling

  8. Wainwright v. Sykes

    433 U.S. 72 (1977)   Cited 8,745 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state procedural waiver of a federal claim will serve to bar to federal habeas review of the claim absent a showing of "cause and prejudice"

  9. Walker v. Martin

    562 U.S. 307 (2011)   Cited 1,667 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule was firmly established because the California Supreme Court had "framed the [rule] for habeas petitioners in a trilogy of cases."

  10. Beard v. Kindler

    558 U.S. 53 (2009)   Cited 1,164 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding motion for reargument was properly filed in part because “capital defendants in Pennsylvania routinely seek reargument when their claims for relief are denied, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted such motions on more than one occasion”

  11. Section 2244 - Finality of determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2244   Cited 65,116 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

  12. Section 2243 - Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

    28 U.S.C. § 2243   Cited 9,821 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 2244, the word "entertain" means a federal district court's conclusion, after examination of the habeas corpus application with such accompanying papers as the court deems necessary, that a hearing on the merits, legal or factual, is proper.

  13. Section 211:3 - Superintendence of inferior courts; power to issue writs and process

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211 § 3   Cited 1,183 times
    Giving the Supreme Judicial Court superintendence of inferior courts

  14. Rule 30 - Postconviction Relief

    Mass. R. Crim. P. 30   Cited 1,578 times

    (a) Unlawful Restraint. Any person who is imprisoned or whose liberty is restrained pursuant to a criminal conviction may at any time, as of right, file a written motion requesting the trial judge to release him or her or to correct the sentence then being served upon the ground that the confinement or restraint was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (b) New Trial. The trial judge upon motion in writing may grant a new trial

  15. Rule 29 - Revision of Revocation of disposition

    Mass. R. Crim. P. 29   Cited 182 times

    (Applicable to District Court and Superior Court) (a) Revision or Revocation. (1) Illegal Dispositions. The trial judge, upon the judge's own motion, or the written motion of the prosecutor, filed within sixty days of a disposition, may revise or revoke such disposition if the judge determines that any part of the disposition was illegal. (2) Unjust Dispositions. The trial judge, upon the judge's own motion, or the written motion of a defendant, filed within sixty days of a disposition, within sixty

  16. Rule 31 - Stay of Execution; Relief Pending Review Automatic Expiration of Stay

    Mass. R. Crim. P. 31   Cited 52 times

    (Applicable to Superior Court and de novo trials in District Court) (a) Imprisonment. If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed upon conviction of a crime, the entry of an appeal shall not stay the execution of the sentence unless the judge imposing it or, pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 6, a single justice of the court that will hear the appeal, determines in the exercise of discretion that execution of said sentence shall be stayed pending the determination of the appeal. If execution of a sentence

  17. Rule 6 - Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

    Mass. R. App. P. 6   Cited 11 times

    (a) Civil Cases (1) Stay Must Ordinarily Be Sought in the First Instance in Lower Court; Motion for Stay in Appellate Court. In civil cases, an application for a stay of the judgment or order of a lower court pending appeal, or for approval of a bond under Rule 6(a)(2), or for an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction during the pendency of an appeal must ordinarily be made in the first instance in the lower court. A motion for such relief may be made to the appellate court