No. 18-5959

John Ingebretsen v. Jack Palmer, Warden, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: cause-and-prejudice certificate-of-appealability civil-rights due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel martinez-v-ryan plea-bargaining post-conviction-counsel procedural-default
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2018-10-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a request for a certificate of appealability

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a request for a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether Ingebretsen could show cause and prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan to overcome the procedural default on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the facts or review the State’s evidence prior to advising Ingebretsen to plead guilty? 1

Docket Entries

2018-10-29
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-02
Waiver of right of respondents Palmer, et al., to respond filed.
2018-09-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 15, 2018)

Attorneys

John Ingebretsen
Jonathan Michael KirshbaumLaw Offices of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Jonathan Michael KirshbaumLaw Offices of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Palmer, et al.,
Jeffrey Morgan ConnerOffice of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondent
Jeffrey Morgan ConnerOffice of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondent