No. 23-6703
Christopher Collings v. David Vandergriff, Warden
IFP
Tags: appeals capital-case capital-punishment certificate-of-appealability civil-procedure due-process eighth-circuit exhaustion-doctrine habeas-corpus rhines-stay
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2024-03-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a COA required to appeal a district court's denial of a motion for stay of the habeas proceedings
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is a COA required to appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for stay of the habeas proceedings made under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), for exhaustion purposes? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit's pro forma, non-reasoned, and blanket denial of a COA in a capital case insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322 (2003); and the heightened due process standard for capital cases? i
Docket Entries
2024-04-01
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/28/2024.
2024-03-13
Reply of petitioner Christopher Collings filed. (Distributed)
2024-02-28
Brief of respondent David Vandergriff in opposition filed.
2024-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 11, 2024)
2023-11-28
Application (23A477) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until February 5, 2024.
2023-11-22
Application (23A477) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 7, 2023 to February 5, 2024, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Christopher Collings
Jeremy Sean Weis — Federal Public Defender - MOW, Petitioner
David Vandergriff
Michael Joseph Spillane — Attorney General's Office, Respondent