The district court granted a limited CoA in this 2254 appeal. Petitioner doesn\u2019t get to expand it to a consensual recording issue [that is frivolous]. Sontay v. Heidle, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30613 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2241 petitioner\u2019s habeas petition was filed while his case was pending in state court so it\u2019s barred by Younger. Also, the Fourth Amendment claim is frivolous and parallels \u00a7 1983 claims already rejected from the same jail. And it doesn\u2019t work in habeas. Jeffries v. Bodiford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228670 (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevail in a habeas Fourth Amendment claim, petitioner must plead and prove his or her inability to pursue a state claim. Williams v. Tinsley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228668 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner doesn\u2019t get a CoA on GPS issue somehow relating to a DNA sample taken by search warrant where the affidavit never mentioned the GPS. Burdick v. Bousch, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30621 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No CoA on petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim rejected both under Stone and on the merits. Smith v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30629 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The district court granted a limited CoA in this 2254 appeal. Petitioner doesn\u2019t get to expand it to a consensual recording issue [that is frivolous]. Sontay v. Heidle, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30613 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).* 2241 petitioner\u2019s … Continue reading