No. 18-7209
Daniel Oberacker v. Jeff Noble, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure civil-procedure-criminal-procedure-due-process-hab civil-proceeding criminal-charge criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus parallel-proceedings sex-offender-classification statutory-limitation
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a parallel civil proceeding may be merged and transformed into a criminal charge/issue at the appellate level
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether a parallel civil proceeding may be merged and transformed into a criminal charge/issue at the appellate level. Il. Whether a federal court may use a parallel civil sex offender classification, which imposed no ‘in-custody’ sentence, to start the clock under U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) one-year limitation for a U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. | “IST OF PARTIES {x} All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. | ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-24
Waiver of right of respondent Noble, Warden to respond filed.
2018-12-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 4, 2019)
Attorneys
Noble, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent