No. 18-9332
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction civil-procedure death-penalty due-process habeas-corpus mandamus prohibition standing
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question not identified.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying Petitioner's request for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and/or prohibition
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-26
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop, Warden to respond filed.
2019-06-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 16, 2019.
2019-06-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 17, 2019 to August 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 17, 2019.
2019-05-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 17, 2019 to July 17, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-04
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
Nawaz Ahmed
Nawaz Ahmed — Petitioner
Tim Shoop, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent