Martin B. Conners v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Martin B. Conners v. United States

431 F.2d 1207, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7207

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 25, 1970·No. 23621_1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The District Court denied appellant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the reason that appellant “has too long slept upon his rights.” Section 2255, however, expressly provides that a motion for relief under that section may be made at any time.

“This later provision simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable.” Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420, 79 S.Ct. 451, 454, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (concurring opinion 1959); Haier v. United States, 334 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1964).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The District Court denied appellant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the reason that appellant “has too long slept upon his rights.” Section 2255, however, expressly provides that a motion for relief under that section may be made at any time.

“This later provision simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable.” Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420, 79 S.Ct. 451, 454, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (concurring opinion 1959); Haier v. United States, 334 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1964).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Martin B. Conners v. United States, 431 F.2d 1207, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7207 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

431 F.2d 1207 (Martin B. Conners v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related