No. 20-7136

James Robert Stanford v. Daniel Paramo, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-02-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability civil-procedure due-process habeas-corpus judicial-review miller-el-v-cockrell miller-v-cockrell pro-se pro-se-litigant procedural-default
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-04-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the requisite 'substantial showing' require pro-se-litigants to re-submit supporting-documents

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1 IN REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, DOES THE REQUISITE “SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING... REQUIRE PRO SE LITIGANTS TO RE-SUBMIT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED IM THE PREVIOUS HABEAS PROCEEDING ? . 2. IF A PRO SE LITIGANT INADVERTENTLY FAILS 70 SUPPORT 1/5 ‘REQUEST FOR C.0,A! vATH DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY PRESENTED iN THE! ~ . PREVIOUS HABEAS, PROCEEDING, SHOULD HE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY “616 DO.S0, ‘Ie HiS REQUEST SETS FORTH FACTS WHicH,, JF TRUE, WOULD saTisFy THE REQUISITE SHOWING UNDER MILLER-EL._¥, , , COCKRELL, 537 U.S.322, 327 (2003) ?

Docket Entries

2021-04-05
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.
2021-03-15
Waiver of right of respondent Daniel Paramo to respond filed.
2021-01-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 18, 2021)

Attorneys

Daniel Paramo
Daniel Brian RogersOffice of the California Attorney General, Respondent
James Robert Stanford
James R. Stanford — Petitioner