No. 19-7393
IFP
Tags: arbitrary-and-capricious death-penalty standing state-law successive-petition arbitrary-and-capricious death-penalty due-process habeas-corpus ninth-circuit second-successive-petition state-law state-law-application successive-petition
Latest Conference:
2020-04-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether transfer to the district court for a hearing pursuant to this Court's original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in this exceptional case where the district court acknowledged the existence of a colorable federal due process claim that the state court arbitrarily and capriciously applied state law in rejecting a second-in-time challenge to the sole statutory aggravating factor, but the Ninth Circuit denied authorization to file the meritable SOS petition without assignment of grounds.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether transfer to the district court for a hearing pursuant to this Court's original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in this exceptional case
Docket Entries
2020-04-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.
2020-03-25
Brief of respondent State of Arizona in opposition filed.
2020-02-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2020.
2020-02-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 24, 2020 to March 25, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-01-17
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
Attorneys
In Re David Gulbrandson
Timothy M. Gabrielsen — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
State of Arizona
Lacey Stover Gard — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent