No. 18-7300
Michael L. Millis v. Stephen Kallis, Warden
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 28-USC-2241 28-usc-2255 custodian custody due-process federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus jurisdiction jurisdictional-issue prisoner-petition savings-clause section-2241 section-2255 transfer-of-venue
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. What is the correct interpretation of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)?
2. Based on the correct interpretation of section 2255(e), is Millis entitled to relief in this case?
3. Did the district court in Kentucky exceed its jurisdiction in denying Millis's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, where Millis is incarcerated in Illinois, and the district court in Kentucky lacks jurisdiction over his custodian?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the correct interpretation of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-03-13
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-23
Waiver of right of respondent Stephen Kallis, Warden to respond filed.
2019-01-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2019)
Attorneys
Michael L. Millis
Michael Lee Millis — Petitioner
Stephen Kallis, Warden
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent