Baker v. Simpson, No. 09-3848, concerned plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to remand his legal malpractice action from a bankruptcy court to state court. The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that claims of professional malpractice, based on services rendered pursuant to a Title 11 petition, "arise in" a bankruptcy case because they implicate the integrity of the bankruptcy process and are inseparable from that proceeding.
Mui v. US, No. 07-4963, involved petitioner's appeal from a district court's order denying habeas corpus relief from a conviction and prison sentence, and denying a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen that decision. The Second Circuit vacated the order on the ground that a defendant who raises on direct appeal ineffective assistance claims based on the strategies, actions, or inactions of counsel that can be, and are, adjudicated on the merits on the trial record is precluded from raising new or repetitive claims based on the same strategies, actions, or inactions in a Section 2255 proceeding. However, such a defendant is not precluded from raising new ineffective assistance claims based on different strategies, actions, or inactions of counsel in a subsequent Section 2255 proceeding.