No. 20-7136
James Robert Stanford v. Daniel Paramo, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability civil-procedure due-process habeas-corpus judicial-review miller-el-v-cockrell miller-v-cockrell pro-se pro-se-litigant procedural-default
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-04-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. IN REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, DOES THE REQUISITE "SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING" REQUIRE PRO SE LITIGANTS TO RE-SUBMIT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS HABEAS PROCEEDING?
2. WOULD SATISFY THE REQUISITE SHOWING UNDER MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the requisite 'substantial showing' require pro-se-litigants to re-submit supporting-documents
Docket Entries
2021-04-05
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.
2021-03-15
Waiver of right of respondent Daniel Paramo to respond filed.
2021-01-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 18, 2021)
Attorneys
Daniel Paramo
Daniel Brian Rogers — Office of the California Attorney General, Respondent
James Robert Stanford
James R. Stanford — Petitioner