Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond, 264 F.2d 242 (6th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Judson Broadus-Bey v. Dr. Murray A. Diamond, 264 F.2d 242 (6th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. White (tnwd, 1999-06-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. White
W.D. Tenn. · 1999 · confidence medium
Cf. Tripati, Yankey v. United States, 290 F.2d 816 (6th Cir.1961); Broadus-Bey v. Diamond, 264 F.2d 242, 243 (6th Cir.1959).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ramon Hueso v. J.A. Barnhart
6th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
To ensure that prisoners would use this new remedy, § 2255 directed courts not to entertain a habeas petition under § 2241 if a prisoner had not filed (or had unsuccessfully filed) a § 2255 motion. 62 Stat. at 968; see, e.g., Broadus-Bey v. Diamond, 264 F.2d 242 , 242–43 (6th Cir. 1959) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Judson BROADUS-BEY, Appellant,
v.
Dr. Murray A. DIAMOND, Appellee
13629_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 12, 1959.
264 F.2d 242
David W. Fries, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant., Henry J. Cook, Marvin D. Jones and N. Mitchell Meade, U. S. Attys., Lexington, Ky., for appellee.
Martin, Allen, Miller.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
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.;[*243] 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.