Magwood v. Patterson

{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2025}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Magwood v. Patterson

|ArgueDate=

|ArgueYear=

|DecideDate=June 24

|DecideYear=2010

|FullName=

|USVol=561

|USPage=287

|Docket=

|ParallelCitations=

|Prior=

|Subsequent=

|Holding=When a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.

|Majority=Thomas

|JoinMajority=Scalia; Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor (except part IV-B)

|Concurrence=Breyer (in part and in judgment)

|JoinConcurrence=Stevens, Sotomayor

|Dissent=Kennedy

|JoinDissent=Roberts, Ginsburg, Alito

|LawsApplied={{UnitedStatesCodeSub|28|2244|b}}

}}

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 287 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.{{ussc|name=Magwood v. Patterson|volume=561|page=287|year=2010}}