No. 18-5485
William N. Washington v. Eric Arnold, Warden
IFP
Tags: civil-case civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights district-court due-process false-arrest habeas-corpus heck-v-humphrey judicial-review malicious-prosecution parole qualified-immunity standing washington-v-diamond
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus Privacy
DueProcess CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2018-10-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has been made by the petitioner, in light of the recent factual finding by the United States District Court that petitioner's civil case, Washington v. Diamond, No. 17-666, is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Whether a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has been made by the petitioner, in light of the recent factual finding, by the United States District Court, in which, it ruled that : petitioner's civil case, Washington v. Diamond, No. 17-666, is not barred by Heck v.:Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). App. E
Docket Entries
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 7, 2018)