No. 19-6708
Daniel Wert v. Ronnie R. Holt, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2241 actual-innocence administrative-remedy atypical-and-significant-hardship atypical-hardship civil-procedure civil-rights district-court-jurisdiction due-process habeas-corpus jurisdiction sandin-v-conners section-2241 standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
A Writ of Certiorari should be granted to address the important and novel question of whether the district court had jurisdiction over the actual-innocence claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, even though no good time credit was taken, but only a loss of privileges which imposed atypical and significant hardship on Petitioner. Sandin v. Conners, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the actual-innocence claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, even though no good time credit was taken, but only a loss of privileges which imposed atypical and significant hardship on the Petitioner
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent Ronnie R. Holt, Warden to respond filed.
2019-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 23, 2019)
Attorneys
Daniel Wert
Daniel Wert — Petitioner
Ronnie R. Holt, Warden
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent