58 Cited authorities

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (2000) Cited 77,470 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a habeas petitioner seeking to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief on procedural grounds must not only make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right but also must demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling
Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,399 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Cullen v. Pinholster
563 U.S. 170 (2011) Cited 14,397 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (1999) Cited 17,853 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."
McQuiggin v. Perkins
569 U.S. 383 (2013) Cited 7,556 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence of actual innocence may serve as a gateway for a habeas petitioner to pass through the statute of limitations procedural bar to asserting an unconstitutional ineffective assistance of counsel claim
Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (1991) Cited 26,283 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"
Schlup v. Delo
513 U.S. 298 (1995) Cited 18,044 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland
Knowles v. Mirzayance
556 U.S. 111 (2009) Cited 6,416 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding the Ninth Circuit's erroneous issuance of a writ was "based, in large measure, on its application of an improper standard of review"
House v. Warden
547 U.S. 518 (2006) Cited 5,421 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in order to pass through the actual-innocence gateway, a petitioner must "demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167 (2001) Cited 5,474 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,690 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 2253 - Appeal
28 U.S.C. § 2253 Cited 115,051 times 58 Legal Analyses
Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"
Section 2244 - Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244 Cited 65,347 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."
Section 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 - Relief from judgments
735 ILCS 5/2-1401 Cited 556 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that in petitions for relief from judgments, “[t]he petition must be filed in the same proceeding in which the order or judgment was entered but is not a continuation thereof”

Hernandez v. Harrington et al

58 Cited authorities

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented

Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

Holding that evidence of actual innocence may serve as a gateway for a habeas petitioner to pass through the statute of limitations procedural bar to asserting an unconstitutional ineffective assistance of counsel claim

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"

Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland

Holding the Ninth Circuit's erroneous issuance of a writ was "based, in large measure, on its application of an improper standard of review"

Holding that, in order to pass through the actual-innocence gateway, a petitioner must "demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"

Providing that in petitions for relief from judgments, “[t]he petition must be filed in the same proceeding in which the order or judgment was entered but is not a continuation thereof”