No. 18-6759
Gregory L. Brown v. Shawn Hatton, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2244(b) 28-usc-2244b brady-claim brady-v-maryland due-process habeas habeas-corpus habeas-petition recurring-issue second-or-successive second-successive-petition statutory-interpretation suspension-clause
Key Terms:
ERISA HabeasCorpus
ERISA HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a claim under Brady v. Maryland brought in a second-in-time habeas petition 'second or successive' for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) when the claim is based on evidence not disclosed until after the first habeas petition was resolved?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Is a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), brought in a second-intime habeas petition “second or successive” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) when the claim is based on evidence not disclosed until after the first habeas petition was resolved? i
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-04
Waiver of right of respondent Hatton, Warden to respond filed.
2018-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 20, 2018)
2018-10-01
Application (18A331) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 19, 2018.
2018-09-25
Application (18A331) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 18, 2018 to November 19, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Gregory L. Brown
Todd M. Borden — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Hatton, Warden
Gregory A. Ott — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent