JUDSON BROADUS-BEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. MURRAY A. DIAMOND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prior habeas corpus application, which was affirmed on appeal, bars the relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised. Furthermore, new grounds require application to the sentencing court first.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the District Court. A prior application for the same relief was previously denied and af…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2244 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. A former application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the validity of the same judgment was previously denied by the District Court. This ruling was affirmed by this Court in Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F. 2d 304, wherein the factual background is stated.
Insofar as the present application attempts to again raise questions considered in the prior application or which could have been presented and considered in the prior application, the District Judge was not required to entertain it. Sec. 2244, Title 28 U.S.C.; Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999; United States ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 7 Cir., 245 F. 2d 88, 91-92; Swihart v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 150 F. 2d 721, 723, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 789, 66 S.Ct. 803, 90 L.Ed. 1016.
If petitioner is now relying upon a new ground which he contends was not previously available to him, there is no showing that he has applied for relief to the District Court wherein he was sentenced, or that the remedy by such a motion before that court would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McNUTT v. State OF Tex., 323 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1963)
Authorities Cited
- Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1924)
- Swihart v. Johnston, 150 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Judson Broadus v. Lowry, 245 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Steiner v. United States, 327 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1946)
- Vandevoir v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 327 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1946)
- United States ex rel. Earl Louis Goodchild, Jr. v. Burke, 245 F.2d 88 (7th Cir. 1957)