| 21-6157 |
Christopher Coker, aka Christopher Forman v. Bernadette Mason, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. |
Third Circuit |
2021-11-03 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
default-rule due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-review martinez-exception martinez-v-ryan pcra post-conviction-relief standing trial-procedure |
Did Trial Judge failed to rule on meritorious issues? |
| 18-9454 |
Daniel Brown v. Pennsylvania |
Pennsylvania |
2019-05-31 |
Denied |
IFP |
aedpa constitutional-challenge constitutional-law constitutional-questions coram-nobis custody error-coram-nobis habeas-corpus jurisdiction jurisdictional-limitation pcra post-conviction-relief writ-of-error-coram-nobis |
Whether 42 Pa. C.S. § 9542 of the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) operate under the Antiterroism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA… |
| 18-8098 |
In Re Christopher Hanson |
|
2019-02-22 |
Denied |
IFP |
due-process government-interference habeas-corpus pcra plea-agreement post-conviction-relief-act statutory-interpretation statutory-provisions timeliness |
Whether appellant Hanson's PCRA's were timely under 42 Pa. C.S. §9545(b) due to government interference and refusal to release documents |
| 18-5926 |
Darnell Wilkins v. Jay Lane, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. |
Third Circuit |
2018-09-12 |
Denied |
IFP |
civil-rights criminal-procedure due-process equitable-tolling guilty-plea habeas-corpus mental-health mental-incapacity pcra psychotropic-medications standing |
Did petitioner's mental incapacity not entitle him to equitable tolling? |
| 18-5450 |
Amilcar Rivas-Rivera v. Pennsylvania |
Pennsylvania |
2018-08-07 |
Denied |
Relisted (2)IFP |
civil-procedure constitutional-rights due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-counsel ineffective-assistance-of-counsel pcra plea-agreement post-conviction-relief prison-mailbox-rule standing state-law timeliness |
Whether the Pennsylvania lower court and appellate court's decision dismissing petitioner's second pro se PCRA petition as untimely is contrary to Pen… |