Gonzalez v. Crosby
- Decided
- June 23, 2005
- Docket
- 04-6432
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,107 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available when the plaintiff had not acted diligently in pursuing review of the issue previously — Philip Anthony Bonadonna v. Unknown (2006)
- concluding that a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment that directly challenges the underlying conviction constitutes a successive § 2254 petition — Hanton v. United States (2024)
- holding that a motion is not a true Rule 60(b) motion where the claims raised therein are based on new evidence or law — Danny Bullock v. Marie Vargo (2019)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*526] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
After the federal courts denied petitioner habeas corpus relief from his state conviction, he filed a motion for relief from that judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The question presented is whether, in a habeas case, such motions are subject to the additional restrictions that apply to “second or successive” habeas corpus petitions under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified at 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.