No. 23-623

Martin Akerman v. Nevada National Guard

Lower Court: Nevada
Docketed: 2023-12-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: constitutional-rights detention detention-challenge due-process federal-law habeas-corpus military-jurisdiction nevada-supreme-court
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Nevada Supreme Court made an error in naming the Nevada National Guard as the sole respondent in a habeas corpus petition

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Jurisdictional Question: Whether the Nevada Supreme Court made an error in naming the Nevada National Guard as the sole respondent in a habeas corpus petition, depriving the Petitioner of a means of contesting the lawfulness of his | restraint and securing his release. ; | 2. Constitutional Rights and Military Jurisdiction: Whether Brigadier General | Garduno's actions violated the petitioner's constitutional rights to due process, | under civilian legal standards. 3. Detention and Due Process under Federal Law: Whether the petitioner's detention and the inability to challenge the foundational facts of the alleged criminal proceedings, contravene the due process guarantees of the constitution of the United States, especially in light of the statutory protections codified by Congress.

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2023-12-11
Motion (23M44) for leave to proceed as a veteran Granted.
2023-11-21
MOTION (23M44) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-15
Motion (23M44) for leave to proceed as a veteran filed.
2023-11-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 10, 2024)
2023-10-24
Application (23A355) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until November 23, 2023.
2023-10-05
Application (23A355) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 30, 2023 to November 23, 2023, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Martin Akerman
Martin Akerman — Petitioner