No. 20-5130
Antonio Lozano Solis v. David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-court access-to-courts appeal-review civil-rights constitutional-right criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Was petitioner denied meaningful access to the court?
2. Does Petitioners INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL claim require a Certificate of Appeal?
A Jurist of Reason Would Find the district Courts Ruling debatable.
A Jurist of Reason Would Find it debatable Whether the Petition Stokes Valid claim of the denial of a Constitutional Right.
A Jurist of Reason Would Find it debatable Whether the Petition Stokes valid claim of the denial of a Constitutional right.
A Reasonable Jurist Would Find the district Courts ruling debatable.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was petitioner denied meaningful access to the court?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-06
Waiver of right of respondent David Shinn to respond filed.
2020-06-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 20, 2020)
2020-03-06
Application (19A986) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 11, 2020.
2020-02-23
Application (19A986) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 12, 2020 to June 11, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Antonio Lozano Solis
Antonio Lozano Solis — Petitioner
David Shinn
Myles Austin Braccio — Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Respondent