|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-6795||5th Cir.||Oct 30, 2017||Mar 21, 2018||9-0||Alito||OT 2017|
Holding: The district court’s denial of Carlos Ayestas’ request for funding for “reasonably necessary” services of experts, investigators and the like, under 18 U. S. C. §3599(f), to develop his claim that both his trial and state habeas counsel were ineffective was a judicial decision subject to appellate review under the standard jurisdictional provisions; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not apply the correct legal standard in affirming the denial of that request.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on March 21, 2018. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 05 2016||Application (16A130) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 8, 2016 to October 24, 2016, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Aug 10 2016||Application (16A130) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until October 24, 2016.|
|Oct 14 2016||Application (16A130) to extend further the time from October 24, 2016 to November 7, 2016, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Oct 19 2016||Application (16A130) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until November 7, 2016.|
|Nov 07 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2016)|
|Dec 05 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 9, 2017.|
|Dec 23 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 8, 2017.|
|Feb 08 2017||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.|
|Feb 23 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 17, 2017.|
|Feb 23 2017||Reply of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.|
|Mar 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.|
|Apr 03 2017||Motion of petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.|
|Apr 10 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea.|
|May 05 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.|
|May 05 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or either party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 12 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 9, 2017.|
|May 12 2017||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 1, 2017.|
|May 16 2017||Motion to appoint counsel DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.|
|Jun 05 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. and Lee B. Kovarsky, Esquire, of Baltimore, Maryland, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Jun 09 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 09 2017||Brief of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea filed.|
|Jun 16 2017||Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,and The American Civil Liberties Union filed.|
|Jun 16 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Constitution Project filed.|
|Jun 16 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Jun 16 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Capital Punishment Center of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law filed.|
|Aug 01 2017||Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Correctional Division filed.|
|Aug 08 2017||Brief amici curiae of States of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Aug 31 2017||Reply of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas filed.|
|Aug 31 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 30, 2017|
|Sep 07 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 12 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A.5th Circuit.|
|Sep 28 2017||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas - Brownsville Division is electronic.|
|Oct 30 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Lee Kovarsky, Baltimore, Md. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, Austin, Tex.|
|Mar 21 2018||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.|
|Apr 23 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.