Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):
          

Banister v. Davis

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
18-6943 5th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD OT 2019

Issue: Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 17 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)
Jan 17 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
Jan 28 2019Response Requested. (Due February 27, 2019)
Feb 27 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2019 to April 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Mar 01 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part, and the time is extended to and including April 10, 2019.
Mar 29 2019Letter from counsel for petitioner received.
Apr 10 2019Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ in opposition filed.
Apr 24 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
Apr 24 2019Reply of petitioner Gregory Dean Banister filed. (Distributed)
May 06 2019Rescheduled.
May 29 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
Jun 17 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
Jun 24 2019Motion to proceed in forma pauperis GRANTED, and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).
Jul 10 2019Request for Extension to File Principal Briefs of Gregory Dean Banister submitted.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards