No. 19-8863
Michael Strausbaugh v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appealability appellate-review certificate-of-appealability civil-rights court-of-appeals due-process federal-district-court habeas-corpus judicial-determination miller-el-doctrine procedural-standard standing
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the requirements of Miller-El v. Cockrell for a Certificate of Appealability were not met
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. : -Okether the. Cou of Aapeels codreyeres “Ure = & oe Lthee a Cerhitvccle . of Appeclesilidy is * denied! bese! : 7 ae «bin Ve olisherel Cou Ke mecils determ jned sn end ao _ 2 apledlher the eequirenceste “of Mller=EL! ve Cockvelly : : cee Gi L fieche oh Appecle bil y deaf v5, allooney , é wo a ae Fy Yel Shehec: Oeslerel Gel Sudge befie the We Z Goad ob Myiedls levied he Ceditie! oP “Appoclsiidy?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent