Five on habeas

The district court granted a limited CoA in this 2254 appeal. Petitioner doesn’t 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’s habeas petition was filed while his case was pending in state court so it’s barred by Younger. Also, the Fourth Amendment claim is frivolous and parallels § 1983 claims already rejected from the same jail. And it doesn’t work in habeas. Jeffries v. Bodiford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228670 (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2025).*

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).*

2254 petitioner doesn’t 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).*

No CoA on petitioner’s 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).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.