No. 24-6346

Daniel Moore v. Misty Mackey, Acting Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability constitutional-rights federal-law habeas-corpus sixth-circuit state-court
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-02-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where the case presented a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, and where the issues presented were debatable amongst jurists of reason, should the Sixth Circuit have granted a certificate of appealability?; Where the decision of the state court resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, does the district court err by denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No. IWhere the ’s case presented a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, and where the issues presented were debatable amongst jurists of reason, should the Sixth Circuit have granted a certificate of appealability? Question No. IIWhere the decision of the state court resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, does the district court err by denying ’s petition for writ of habeas corpus? 1

Docket Entries

2025-03-03
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2025.
2025-02-05
Waiver of Mackey, Warden of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-05
Waiver of right of respondent Mackey, Warden to respond filed.
2025-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 20, 2025)

Attorneys

Daniel Moore
Daniel Moore — Petitioner
Mackey, Warden
Thomas Elliot GaiserOffice of the Ohio Attorney General, Respondent