Banister v. Davis
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
| Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
|---|
| Sep 17 2018 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019) |
| Jan 17 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019. |
| Jan 28 2019 | Response Requested. (Due February 27, 2019) |
| Feb 27 2019 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2019 to April 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk. |
| Mar 01 2019 | Motion 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 2019 | Letter from counsel for petitioner received. |
| Apr 10 2019 | Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ in opposition filed. |
| Apr 24 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019. |
| Apr 24 2019 | Reply of petitioner Gregory Dean Banister filed. (Distributed) |
| May 06 2019 | Rescheduled. |
| May 29 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019. |
| Jun 17 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019. |
| Jun 24 2019 | Motion 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 2019 | Request for Extension to File Principal Briefs of Gregory Dean Banister submitted. |
Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):
Submit Event
