No. 23-5283
Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr. v. Cal Trahune, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aedpa appellate-review exhaustion-doctrine habeas-corpus nunc-pro-tunc procedural-review rule-60(b) rule-60b standard-of-review
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1.
WHETHER DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF FEDERAL
HABEAS CORPUS PREMATURELY FILED IN ORDER TO
EXAUST ALL AVAILABLE STATE REMEDIES COM7$ AS A
FIRST AND ONLY ALLOWABLE FILING UNDER AEDPA ?
2.
WHETHER RULE 60(b) MOTION IS PROPER LEGAL V£SS£L
TO CORRECT OMISSION OF FIRST FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
FROM THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF NEW HABEAS CORPUS'
UNDER THE NUNC PRO TUNC DOCTRINE ?
3.
WHETHER APPELATE COURT'S USE OF WRONG
STANDARD OF REVIEW IS REVERSABLE ERROR ?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-dismissal-without-prejudice-of-federal-habeas-corpus-prematurely-filed-counts-as-first-filing-under-aedpa
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-25
Waiver of right of respondent Cal Trahune, et al. to respond filed.
2023-06-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2023)
Attorneys
Cal Trahune, et al.
Kenneth Charles Byrne — California Attorney General, Respondent
Clarence Leonard Hearns
Clarence L. Hearns — Petitioner