No. 20-5660
Percy St. George v. Kevin Ransom, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability civil-rights constitutional-claim court-of-appeals district-court due-process habeas-corpus legal-standard petition-review reasonable-jurist standard-of-review standing
Latest Conference:
2020-10-09
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER REASONABLE JURIST COULD DEBATE THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING THAT APPELLANT'S PETITION DOES NOT STATE A VALID CLAIM OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Slack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)& SHOULD HAVE THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS BEEN A FACTOR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DECISION?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether reasonable jurist could debate the third circuit court of appeals adoption that the district court's ruling that appellant's petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right
Docket Entries
2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-15
Waiver of right of respondent Kevin Ransom, et al. to respond filed.
2020-09-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Kevin Ransom, et al.
Nancy Winkelman — District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Percy St. George
Percy St. George — Petitioner