CHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
|
|
- Lydia Smith
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM This chapter discusses the various components of the AEDPA deference statute, including... The meaning of the term merits adjudication, The clearly established law bar to relief, The contrary to restriction on deferential review, and The deferential unreasonable application of standard. For a comprehensive discussion of the standards of review in federal habeas proceedings, see Means, Postconviction Remedies, Chapter 29 (West 2015 ed.). Although the Supreme Court over time has fashioned a variety of procedural rules limiting the ability of prisoners to obtain postconviction review, it has consistently exercised plenary review over state court rulings on pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. But in 1996, application of this de novo review standard came to an abrupt end. In that year, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). In one of the most radical
2 changes to federal-habeas jurisprudence ever, this enactment dramatically altered the standard for federal court review of state court merits decisions. Where previously these rulings were given no deference, AEDPA both imposed a bar on claims for relief dependent on federal rights that the Supreme Court had not itself clearly established, and it established a highly deferential standard of review of state court merits adjudications. These new provisions have had a significant and adverse affect on the ability of state prisoners to obtain federal habeas relief. A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW 1 Historically, state prisoners seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus were limited only to challenging the jurisdiction of the state court that rendered the judgment. In the late 1800s, the types of cases that the Supreme Court deemed jurisdictional grew. And beginning in the early 1900s, state prisoners were allowed to pursue their claims in federal court so long as no state court had provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the prisoner s claims. But absent one of these circumstances, a state court criminal judgment was entitled to absolute respect, 2 and a federal habeas court could not review it even for reasonableness. 3 1 The precise development of habeas corpus jurisprudence is the subject of dispute. See Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 280, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992) (opn. of Thomas, J.); id. at 287, 112 S.Ct (O Connor, concurring in judgment). To read more about these differing views, see Means, Postconviction Remedies, 4:4 (West 2015 ed.). 2 Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 446, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986) (opn. of Powell, J.). 3 West, 505 U.S. at 286, 112 S.Ct
3 In 1953, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Allen 4 discarded this principle of absolute deference, holding that a state court criminal judgment of conviction was not res judicata on federal habeas review with respect to federal constitutional claims, regardless of whether the prisoner had been afforded a full and fair hearing in state court. The appropriate question, the Court said, was whether the state court adjudication resulted in a satisfactory conclusion. 5 The Court did not elaborate on the parameters of what constituted a satisfactory conclusion or, in particular, whether the state court judgment was entitled to deference. And in the cases that followed over the next three decades, the Court did not explicitly address whether federal habeas review of a state court judgment should be de novo or deferential. It was not until 1985 that the Court in Miller v. Fenton 6 made explicit that mixed constitutional questions those involving mixed questions of law and fact were subject to plenary federal review on habeas corpus. Beginning in the late 1980s, it appeared, to some at least, that the Court was beginning to question the use of the de novo review standard on pure questions of law in federal habeas proceedings. 7 The issue came to the forefront in the Court s 1992 decision in Wright v. West. 8 Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, argued that the Court had never actually held that de novo review of federal habeas claims was appropriate and intimated that a deference rule would be appropriate for all issues in habeas corpus U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). 5 Id. at 463, 73 S.Ct U.S. 104, 112, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). 7 West, 505 U.S. at 291, 112 S.Ct Id. at 286, 112 S.Ct
4 cases. But Justice O Connor in a separate opinion, joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens, wrote that the Court had not changed the standard of review and that federal courts must review a state court s legal conclusions de novo. 9 In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy supported Justice O Connor s view on the standard of review. 10 Justice White did not address the issue in his concurring opinion, 11 while Justice Souter s concurring opinion arguably could be read as supporting Justice Thomas s view. 12 But in the end, the Court declined to revisit its prior holding in Miller v. Fenton that mixed constitutional questions were subject to plenary federal review on habeas corpus review. 13 Ultimately, Congress s enactment of AEDPA in 1996 eliminated the need for the Court to decide the extent to which state court legal decisions should be reviewed deferentially. Under this new set of laws, federal courts collaterally reviewing state proceedings are required to give considerable deference to state-court decisions. 14 This deferential review provision the subject of this chapter. B. THE STATUTE The deferential review provision of AEDPA is found in 2254 of Title 28. As amended by AEDPA, it states: (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be 9 Id. at (O Connor, J., concurring). 10 Id. at 307 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 11 Id. at 297 (White, J., concurring). 12 Id. at 313 (Souter, J., concurring). 13 Id. at 294, 112 S.Ct U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).
5 granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 15 Each of the components of the statute is discussed briefly in turn. What about federal prisoners? Although many of the provisions of AEDPA apply to both state and federal prisoners a one-year statute of limitations, limits on successive 2255 motions, and a heightened showing to appeal the deferential review provisions of 2254(d), the subject of this chapter, do not apply to federal prisoners. C. MERITS ADJUDICATIONS Typically, the first step in analyzing a state prisoner s claim in a federal habeas proceeding is identifying the appropriate standard of review. 16 If the conditions of 2254(d) are met, a federal court is required to review U.S.C (emphasis added). 16 Although this is the usual course, there is nothing that prevents a federal court from denying (but not granting) relief on the claim applying a de novo standard of review. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).
6 the state court s decision deferentially. Otherwise, the claim is subject to plenary (non-deferential) federal review. The application of 2254(d)(1) s deferential review provision are dependent on a state court having adjudicated the prisoner s claim on its merits. 17 In general, a state court is deemed to have adjudicated a claim on the merits when it decides the prisoner s right to relief on the basis of the substance of the constitutional argument advanced, as opposed to some procedural or other rule precluding state court merits review. For instance, there is no merits adjudication if the state court overlooked or disregarded the prisoner s claim. In some cases, it may not be clear from the record whether the state court decided the prisoner s federal claim on the merits, if at all. For example, not infrequently state courts deny relief on collateral review without providing any explanation or citation to authority establishing the basis for the ruling. Early on, lower courts generally agreed that these types of unexplained rulings, or summary denials, qualified as merits adjudications entitled to deference under 2254(d). The Supreme Court ultimately endorsed this view in Harrington v. Richter. 18 In its 2011 decision, the Court held that when a federal claim is presented to a state court and the state court denies relief, it is presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits, at least in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) (deferential review applies to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings ) U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
7 principles to the contrary. The Court based its decision on the fact that there was no text in [ 2254(d)] requiring a statement of reasons, but the statute instead referred only to a decision, which resulted from an adjudication. 19 Summary rulings, the Court decided, met this requirement. But its ruling was qualified. [W]hen there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court s decision is more likely, the Court admonished, the presumption of a merits adjudication may be overcome. 20 Richter had not made this showing. Although he mention[ed] the theoretical possibility that the members of the California Supreme Court may not have agreed on the reasons for denying his petition, the Court was unpersuaded, concluding that the argument was based on pure speculation. 21 Confusion may arise where the prisoner alleged in a state-court petition that a single error violated both state and federal law and the state court only explicitly addressed the state-court ground in its ruling. In this scenario, a question arises over whether the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits, or otherwise, by the state court. This was the subject of the Supreme Court s decision in Johnson v. Williams. 22 In that case, Williams argued on direct appeal that the trial court had improperly discharged a juror in violation of both the Sixth Amendment and California law. The state court of appeal affirmed the conviction and discussed at length the propriety of the trial judge s decision to dismiss the juror. Although the state court of appeal quoted the 19 Id. at 98, 131 S.Ct Id. at , 131 S.Ct. 770 (citing Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991)). 21 Id. at 100, 131 S.Ct U.S., 133 S.Ct. 1088, 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013).
8 definition of impartiality from a United States Supreme Court case, it did not expressly acknowledge that it was deciding a Sixth Amendment claims. The state supreme court granted Williams s petition for review and remanded her case for further consideration in light of an intervening state supreme court decision, People v. Cleveland. 23 The state court of appeal reaffirmed its decision, but again the court did not expressly acknowledge the federal claim. The Ninth Circuit on federal habeas review stated that it was obvious the state court of appeal had overlooked or disregarded the Sixth Amendment claim and proceeded to review the claim under a de novo standard. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a state court opinion addresses some, but not all, of a defendant s claims, there is a rebuttable presumption that the state court adjudicated the unmentioned claims on the merits. The Court reasoned that there was no reason why the Richter presumption should not also apply when a state court opinion addresses some but not all of a defendant s claims. 24 The Court explained that because there is not a uniform practice among state court of appeals of separately addressing every single claim mentioned in a defendant s papers, federal courts cannot assume that any unaddressed federal claim was simply overlooked. Indeed, the Court noted, there are several situations in which state courts frequently take a different course namely, they may view a line of state precedent as fully incorporating a related federal constitutional right, they may not regard a fleeting reference to a provision of the federal Constitution or Cal.4th 466, 106 Cal.Rptr. 2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225 (2001). 24 Williams, U.S. at, 133 S.Ct. at 1091.
9 federal precedent as sufficient to raise a federal claim, or they may simply regard a claim as too insubstantial to merit discussion. 25 Thus, the Court ruled, because it is by no means uncommon for a state court to fail to address separately a federal claim that the court has not simply overlooked, it saw no sound reason not to apply the Richter presumption. 26 But the Court added that, although this presumption is a strong one, it may be rebutted in unusual circumstances. 27 This may be done, according to the Court, either by the habeas petitioner (for the purpose of showing that the claim should be considered by the federal court de novo) or by the State (for the purpose of showing that the federal claim should be regarded as procedurally defaulted). 28 These circumstances include where the state standard is less protective than the federal standard; where the state standard is quite different from the federal standard, and the defendant s papers made no effort to develop the basis for the federal claim ; and where a provision of the Federal Constitution or a federal precedent was simply mentioned in passing in a footnote or was buried in a string cite Similarly, where the defendant fails to 25 Id. at, 133 S.Ct. at Id. at, 133 S.Ct. at The Court rejected as going too far the State s argument that if a defendant alleged in state court that the same act violated both a provision of the federal Constitution and a related provision of state law, and the state court in denying relief made no reference to federal law, it should be presumed that the state court adjudicated the federal claim on the merits. Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id.
10 exhaust available state court remedies, the Richter presumption is fully rebutted. 30 Turning to the facts at hand, the Court came to the inescapable conclusion that the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the state court of appeal had overlooked Williams s Sixth Amendment claim. 31 First, and most significant, was the state court of appeal s discussion of the Cleveland decision a state supreme court case that discussed three federal appellate court cases addressing the Sixth Amendment implications of discharging holdout jurors. Although Cleveland did not expressly say that it was deciding a federal constitutional question, its discussion of the federal circuit court cases demonstrated that it understood it was deciding a question with federal constitutional dimensions. The Court added that it was difficult to imagine the state supreme court had announced an interpretation of state law that it believed to be less protective than the Sixth Amendment, as any such interpretation would provide no guidance to state trial judges bound to follow both state and federal law. 32 Second, although not perfectly coextensive, the similarity of the federal- and state-law claims made it unlikely that the state court of appeal had decided one while overlooking the other. 33 Third, that the state court of appeal cited a United States Supreme Court decision indicated that it was well aware that the questioning and dismissal of the juror implicated both state and federal law. 34 And finally, the Court was persuaded by Williams s litigation strategy 30 Id. at, 133 S.Ct. at 1096 n Id. at, 133 S.Ct. at Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. at, 133 S.Ct. at 1099.
11 treating her state and federal claims as interchangeable, and failing to object in any state court proceeding that her Sixth Amendment claim had not been adjudicated. 35 The Supreme Court has not confronted the situation where the state court expressly references all but one of the prisoner s claims (like Williams), and the unmentioned claim is unrelated to the other claims (unlike Williams). Although the Court in Williams stated that there is no reason why the Richter presumption should not also apply when a state court opinion addresses some but not all of a defendant s claims, Williams, 133 S.Ct. at 1094, it did not explain what type of circumstances would rebut the presumption. Lower courts have been left to grapple with this uncertainty. Means, Postconviction Remedies, 26:9 (West 2015 ed.) (suggesting possible approaches and discussing lower court decisions on this issue). D. CLEARLY ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT If it is determined that the state court adjudicated the prisoner s federal claim on the merits within the meaning of 2254(d)(1), the inquiry turns to whether the state court s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 36 This inquiry requires the consideration of three separate components: contrary to, unreasonable application, and clearly established. 35 Id U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).
12 The clearly established component, although last in sequence, is the first to consider. It is a threshold issue that must be addressed before a federal court can analyze the contrary to and unreasonable application components, discussed in the subchapters that follow. 37 Only after the federal court answers affirmatively the preliminary question regarding the existence of clearly established federal law can it then ask whether the state court decision is either contrary to or an unreasonable application of such law. In addition to being an initiatory step in an 2254(d)(1) analysis, the clearly established law determination is often a dispositive one. Without clearly established federal law, a federal habeas court need not assess whether a state court s merits decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of federal law. The reason is that absent clearly established law, a federal court evaluating a habeas claim cannot possibly conclude that a state court s merits decision was contrary to, or unreasonably application of, Supreme Court precedent. 38 The term clearly established is not defined in 2254(d). It was not until four years after AEDPA s enactment that the Supreme Court defined 2254(d)(1) s 37 Andrade, 538 U.S. at 71, 123 S.Ct ( As a threshold matter here, we first decide what constitutes clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. ). 38 Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 126, 128 S.Ct. 743, 169 L.Ed.2d 583 (2008) ( Because our cases give no clear answer to the question presented, let alone one in Van Patten s favor, it cannot be said that the state court unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law. Musladin, 549 U.S. at 77, 127 S.Ct. 649, 654 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1)). Under the explicit terms of 2254(d)(1), therefore, relief is unauthorized. ).
13 END OF EXCERPT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, VS. STEVEN CRAIG JAMES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-840 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GERALD L. WERTH, Petitioner, v. CINDI CURTIN, WARDEN, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-794 Supreme Court of the United States RANDY WHITE, WARDEN, Petitioner, v. ROBERT KEITH WOODALL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MONSEL DUNGEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. AL ESTEP;
More informationLAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER* I. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2007, the
More informationBoston College Law Review
Boston College Law Review Volume 56 Issue 6 Electronic Supplement Article 13 5-13-2015 A Criminal Defendant s First Bite at the Constitutional Apple: The Eleventh Circuit s Excessively Deferential Conception
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-775 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JEFFERY LEE, v.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-465 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DEBORAH K. JOHNSON,
More informationAEDPA: HABEAS PETITIONS. Gauging by the sheer volume of relevant decisions of the federal courts in this Circuit,
AEDPA: HABEAS PETITIONS By: Mark M. Baker 1 Gauging by the sheer volume of relevant decisions of the federal courts in this Circuit, it appears to be well known -- by practitioners and pro se litigants
More informationFEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 Meredith J. Ross 2011 Clinical Professor of Law Director, Frank J. Remington Center University of Wisconsin Law School 1) Introduction Many inmates
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14 191 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTONS, VS. RICHARD D. HURLES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationF I L E D May 29, 2012
Case: 11-70021 Document: 00511869515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D May 29, 2012 Lyle
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 542 U. S. (2004) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
Seumanu v. Davis Doc. 0 0 ROPATI A SEUMANU, v. Plaintiff, RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Case No. -cv-0-rs
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-30-2007 Graf v. Moore Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1041 Follow this and additional
More informationFederal Habeas Relief and the New Tolerance for Reasonably Erroneous Applications of Federal Law
1 of 23 Federal Habeas Relief and the New Tolerance for Reasonably Erroneous Applications of Federal Law TODD E. PETTYS * In Williams v. Taylor and Ramdass v. Angelone, the United States Supreme Court
More informationState Habeas and Tribal Habeas: Identical or Fraternal Twins? By Barbara Creel and Veronica C. Gonzales-Zamora August 31, 2017
State Habeas and Tribal Habeas: Identical or Fraternal Twins? By Barbara Creel and Veronica C. Gonzales-Zamora August 31, 2017 In law school, you learn about the great writ, also known as the writ of habeas
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-492 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EDDIE L. PEARSON,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No
Case: 18-90010 Date Filed: 04/18/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 18-90010 WALTER LEROY MOODY, JR., versus Petitioner, U.S. ATTORNEY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 09 5327 ALBERT HOLLAND, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [June
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-395 In The Supreme Court of the United States ------------------------- ------------------------- CARLTON JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Petitioner, v. JASON WAYNE HURST,
More informationCase: Document: 38-2 Filed: 06/01/2016 Page: 1. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0288n.06. Case No.
Case: 14-2093 Document: 38-2 Filed: 06/01/2016 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0288n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ARTHUR EUGENE SHELTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) Cite as: 550 U. S. (2007) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus. WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.
Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 Page: 1 of 10 KEITH THARPE, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P versus Petitioner Appellant, WARDEN, Respondent Appellee.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION RICHARD HAMBLEN ) ) v. ) No. 3:08-1034 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Pending before
More informationABDUL-KABIR v. QUARTERMAN/BREWER v. QUARTERMAN: A COURT DIVIDED OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW
ABDUL-KABIR v. QUARTERMAN/BREWER v. QUARTERMAN: A COURT DIVIDED OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW JAROD R. STEWART* I. INTRODUCTION The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
More informationDue Process in American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001
Touro Law Review Volume 29 Number 1 Article 6 2012 Due Process in American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001 Gary Shaw Touro Law Center, gshaw@tourolaw.edu Follow this and additional works at:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254 (PERSONS IN STATE CUSTODY) 1) The attached form is
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL HABEAS PRACTICE
NOT-READY-FOR-POWERPOINT PRODUCTIONS PRESENTS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL HABEAS PRACTICE The October 2010 Supreme Court Term and Selected Ninth Circuit Highlights AEDPA standard of review! Federal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 549 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNo ~n ~up~eme ~ourt of t~e ~n~teb ~tate~ JERI-ANN SHERRY Petitioner, WILLIAM D. JOHNSON Respondent.
JUL! 3 ~I0 No. 09-1342 ~n ~up~eme ~ourt of t~e ~n~teb ~tate~ JERI-ANN SHERRY Petitioner, Vo WILLIAM D. JOHNSON Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 06-691 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MICHAEL G. NEW, PETITIONER v. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 536 U. S. (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01 301 TOM L. CAREY, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. TONY EUGENE SAFFOLD ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 544 U. S. (2005) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Hopson v. Uttecht Doc. 0 BARUTI HOPSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C--MJP v. Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION JEFFREY UTTECHT, Respondent. 0 This matter comes
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Scott v. Cain Doc. 920100202 Case: 08-30631 Document: 00511019048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0185P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0185p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 549 U. S. (2007) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, 2007 Case No. 03-5681 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTHUR CALDERON, WARDEN v. RUSSELL COLEMAN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No.
More informationCircuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED. Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1994 September Term, 2017 ANTHONY M. CHARLES v. STATE OF MARYLAND Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFERSON DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. VERNON MADISON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Scaife v. Falk et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02530-BNB VERYL BRUCE SCAIFE, v. Applicant, FRANCIS FALK, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
More informationRULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
RULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION INTRODUCTION On April 24, 1996, Senate Bill
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONALD PRATOLA, Civil Action No (MCA) Petitioner, v. OPINION. WARDEN (SSCF) et a).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONALD PRATOLA, Civil Action No. 14-3077 (MCA) Petitioner, v. OPINION WARDEN (SSCF) et a)., Respondents. Dockets.Justia.com ARLEO, United States District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv MTT. Petitioner-Appellant, versus
Case: 14-10681 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 1 of 92 [PUBLISH] MARION WILSON, JR., IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10681 D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00489-MTT versus WARDEN,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-931 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THE STATE OF NEVADA,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GEORGE LEWIS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-2806
More informationA Line in the Sand: The Supreme Court and the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Tulsa Law Review Volume 32 Issue 3 Practitioner's Guide to the October 1995 Supreme Court Term Article 3 Spring 1997 A Line in the Sand: The Supreme Court and the Writ of Habeas Corpus Melissa L. Koehn
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationCase 5:08-cv RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:08-cv-00296-RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 RDMTIND G. BROWN TR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General HUE L.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 26, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT KEISHA DESHON GLOVER, Petitioner - Appellant, No.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 2060 RONALD D. EDWARDS, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. ROBERT W. CARPENTER ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,934. DUANE WAHL, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,934 DUANE WAHL, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When the district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion based
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner - Appellee, No v. (D. Kansas) ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ, HOLLOWAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
EDWIN TOMLIN, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 13, 2008 TENTH CIRCUIT Petitioner - Appellee, No. 07-3286 v. (D. Kansas) Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1014 JIMMY EVANS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. THOMPSON, Superintendent of MCI Shirley, Respondent, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CO-907. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Anthony Butler v. K. Harrington Doc. 9026142555 Case: 10-55202 06/24/2014 ID: 9142958 DktEntry: 84 Page: 1 of 11 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-324 In the Supreme Court of the United States JO GENTRY, et al., v. MARGARET RUDIN, Petitioners, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1428 In the Supreme Court of the United States KEVIN CHAPPELL, WARDEN, Petitioner, v. HECTOR AYALA, Respondent. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More information8 OPINION AND ORDER 9 10 Petitioner brings this pro se petition under 28 U.S.C for relief from a federal
De-Leon-Quinones v. USA Doc. 11 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 ANDRÉS DE LEÓN QUIÑONES, 4 Petitioner, 5 v. Civil No. 11-1329 (JAF) (Crim. No. 06-125) 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 01-CV BC Honorable David M. Lawson PAUL RENICO,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH RICHMOND, Petitioner, v. Case No. 01-CV-10054-BC Honorable David M. Lawson PAUL RENICO, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Hughbanks, 159 Ohio App.3d 257, 2004-Ohio-6429.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. HUGHBANKS, Appellant. APPEAL
More informationWhile the common law has banned executing the insane for centuries, 1 the U.S. Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS LOWER COURT FINDING THAT MENTALLY ILL PRISONER IS COMPETENT TO BE EXECUTED. Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 716 F.3d
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No P. versus
Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 09/21/2017 Page: 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14027-P KEITH THARPE, WARDEN, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, versus
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No JEWEL SPOTVILLE, VERSUS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30661 JEWEL SPOTVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, VERSUS BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, LA; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-580 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIAN COOK, WARDEN,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-981 In the Supreme Court of the United States NICHOLAS TODD SUTTON, Petitioner, v. ROLAND COLSON, WARDEN, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationDunn v. Madison United States Supreme Court. Emma Cummings *
Emma Cummings * Thirty-two years ago, Vernon Madison was charged with the murder of a Mobile, Alabama police officer, Julius Schulte. 1 He was convicted of capital murder by an Alabama jury and sentenced
More informationChristopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2012 Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No KENNETH WAYNE MORRIS, versus
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 04-70004 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk KENNETH WAYNE MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationJULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3521951 (C.A.6 (Ky.)) Briefs and Other Related Documents Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. This case was not selected for publication in the Federal
More informationON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 16-6316 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES November 2, 2016 MICHAEL DAMON RIPPO, Petitioner, V. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 22, 2008 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT STEVE YANG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 07-1459
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1227 In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHAEL D. CREWS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER, v. ANTHONY JOSEPH FARINA, RESPONDENT. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States JAVIER CAVAZOS, ACTING WARDEN OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN S FACILITY AT CHOWCHILLA, Petitioner, v. TARA SHENEVA WILLIAMS, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT
More informationNO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Tyrone Noling, Petitioner, Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, Respondent.
NO. 11-7376 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Tyrone Noling, Petitioner, Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
July 6 2012 DA 11-0404 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 143 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner and Appellee, v. CHAD CRINGLE, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-449 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. JONATHAN D. CARR, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
More informationForeign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney
Foreign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney U.S. courts are known around the world for allowing ample pre-trial discovery.
More informationMichelle Hetzel v. Marirosa Lamas
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-24-2010 Michelle Hetzel v. Marirosa Lamas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3043 Follow
More informationDistrict Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct (2009). Dorothea Thompson' I. Summary
Thompson: Post-Conviction Access to a State's Forensic DNA Evidence 6:2 Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 307 STUDENT CASE COMMENTARY POST-CONVICTION ACCESS TO A STATE'S FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE FOR PROBATIVE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THOMAS KNIGHT, AKA ASKARI ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD 98 9741 v. FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CAREY DEAN MOORE
More informationMarcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-10-2009 Marcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1995 Follow
More informationSMITH v. BARRY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
244 OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus SMITH v. BARRY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 90 7477. Argued December 2, 1991 Decided January 14, 1992 Rule 3 of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 98,716. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MICHAEL HUGHES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 98,716 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL HUGHES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State must prove a defendant's criminal history score by a preponderance
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-70027 Document: 00514082668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TODD WESSINGER, Petitioner - Appellee Cross-Appellant United States Court
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-31-2005 Engel v. Hendricks Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1601 Follow this and additional
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-257 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAX HAWKINS, PETITIONER V. JEFFREY WOODS, WARDEN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV : MEMORANDUM
Bouyea v. Baltazar Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV-14-2388 : JUAN BALTAZAR, : (Judge Kosik) : Respondent
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-240 In the Supreme Court of the United States KENTEL MYRONE WEAVER, PETITIONER v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS BRIEF FOR MASSACHUSETTS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1174 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARLON SCARBER, PETITIONER v. CARMEN DENISE PALMER ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. -v- GDCP WARDEN, Georgia Diagnostic Prison, Respondent.
No. 14-8589 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TRAVIS CLINTON HITTSON, -v- Petitioner, GDCP WARDEN, Georgia Diagnostic Prison, Respondent. REPLY TO RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION Brian Kammer
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BARBARA GRUTTER, vs. Plaintiff, LEE BOLLINGER, et al., Civil Action No. 97-CV-75928-DT HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN Defendants. and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 99 5746 LONNIE WEEKS, JR., PETITIONER v. RONALD J. AN- GELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
More information