No. 18-9314
Randall Pierce v. Stuart Sherman, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts civil-procedure clearly-established-law criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus ninth-circuit pleadings pro-se pro-se-pleadings sentencing-information standing supreme-court
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-06-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the District Court Judge's liberal construction of the pro se pleadings a denial of access to the courts?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Was the District Court Judge’s [liberal Construction of the Pro Se Pleadings a Denial of Access to the Courts? 2) Does a State Court Fail to Unreasonably Apply Clearly Established Law of the Supreme Court’s Iowa v. Tovar Decision and its Progeny When it Concedes it Never Advises the Defendant on WhatAllowable Punishments Are Faced in View of the Charges? -i
Docket Entries
2019-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-05-23
Waiver of right of respondent Sherman, Warden to respond filed.
2019-05-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
Randall Pierce
Charles R Khoury Jr. — Charles R. Khoury Jr. Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Charles R Khoury Jr. — Charles R. Khoury Jr. Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Sherman, Warden
Peggy S. Ruffra — Respondent
Peggy S. Ruffra — Respondent
Michele Joette Swanson — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Michele Joette Swanson — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent