Lykus v. Corsini, 565 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Lykus v. Corsini, 565 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ryan v. Mansapit-Shimizu (gud, 2024-07-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ryan v. Mansapit-Shimizu
D. Guam · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 , 490-91 n.6 23 24 (1980)). “[T]he Court explicitly limited its holding to ‘a procedural limitation on the claimant’s ability to assert his rights, not a substantive element of the [underlying] claim.’” Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1 1126, 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Logan, 455 U.S. at 433 ). 2 Here, the Court finds that the Ryan sufficiently alleges inadequate state process.
discussed Cited "see" Pagan-San Miguel v. United States
1st Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Petitioner’s application for leave to file a second or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied. 1 1 . ''Th[is] ... denial of an authorization ... to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(E); see Lykus v. Corsini, 565 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward S. LYKUS, Petitioner,
v.
Michael CORSINI, Superintendent, Bay State Correctional Center, Respondent
08-2425.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Apr 28, 2009.
565 F.3d 1
Edward S. Lykus pro se on petition for panel rehearing ■ and rehearing en banc.
Lynch, Torruella, Boudin, Lipez, Howard.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

After a panel of this court denied the petitioner’s application for leave to file a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief, he filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc of that denial. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is stricken.

The habeas statute provides that “[t]he ... denial of an authorization to file a second or successive application ... shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). Although the statute does not expressly refer to petitions for rehearing en banc, we join several other circuits in construing that provision to preclude not only petitions for panel rehearing but also petitions or suggestions for rehearing en banc. See In re King, 190 F.3d 479, 481 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir.1997); Hatch v. Oklahoma, 92 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir.1996), overruled on other grds., Daniels v. United States, 254 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.2001). Cf. In re Byrd, 269 F.3d 585, 585 (6th Cir.2001) (en banc) (court may order rehearing en banc sua sponte); Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (same).

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is stricken. The “Motion That No Immediate Action Be Taken On His Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc” is denied in light of Petitioner’s January 12, 2009 letter to this court.