This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the circumstances under which a party that physically supplies a vessel with fuel or other necessaries possesses a statutory maritime lien; when absolute immunity shields a prosecutor’s handling of post-conviction DNA testing under Imbler v. Pachtman; and whether Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler apply to ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims that were technically raised in state habeas proceedings, but were unsubstantiated because of the ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel.

The petitions of the week are:

18-1132
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issue: Whether Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler apply to ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims that were technically raised in state habeas proceedings but went wholly unsubstantiated due to the ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel.

18-1193

Issue: Whether absolute immunity shields a prosecutor’s unconstitutional handling of post-conviction DNA testing under Imbler v. Pachtman when the prosecutor’s personal involvement with legal proceedings has ended, there is no ongoing judicial proceeding in which the prosecutor could function as an advocate, and all existing direct and collateral post-conviction appeals have been exhausted.

18-1211

Issue: Whether a party that physically supplies a vessel with fuel or other necessaries possesses a statutory maritime lien when the vessel owner or its authorized agent ordered those necessaries and directed the supplier to provide them, regardless of contractual relationships between the vessel owner and intermediate parties.

18-1224

Issue: Whether a party that physically supplies a vessel with fuel or other necessaries possesses a statutory maritime lien when the vessel owner or its authorized agent ordered those necessaries and directed the supplier to provide them, regardless of contractual relationships between the vessel owner and intermediate parties.

Posted in Smith v. Mays, Moon v. County of El Paso, Texas, NuStar Energy Services v. ING Bank N.V., NuStar Energy Services v. ING Bank N.V., Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Aurora Barnes, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (May. 2, 2019, 9:36 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/petitions-of-the-week-42/