No. 18-9332
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction civil-procedure death-penalty due-process habeas-corpus mandamus prohibition standing
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying Petitioner's request for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and/or prohibition
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. : J
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-26
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop, Warden to respond filed.
2019-06-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 16, 2019.
2019-06-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 17, 2019 to August 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 17, 2019.
2019-05-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 17, 2019 to July 17, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-04
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
Tim Shoop, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent