No. 21-5074
Samuel Ridder v. Tim Shoop, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: alleged-bias appellate-procedure certificate-of-appealability forfeiture ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-bias merits-brief prosecutorial-misconduct sixth-circuit
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did the Sixth Circuit misconstrue the Certificate of Appealability as a merits brief?
2. Did the Sixth Circuit err as to forfeiture of the claim regarding alleged bias of the trial judge.
3. Did the Sixth Circuit err as to forfeiture of the claim regarding prosecutorial misconduct?
4. Did the Sixth Circuit err as to its determination of the claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel?
5. Did the Sixth Circuit err as to its determination of the claim regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Sixth Circuit misconstrue the Certificate of Appealability as a merits brief?
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-03
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop to respond filed.
2021-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 11, 2021)
Attorneys
Samuel Ridder
Samuel Ridder — Petitioner
Tim Shoop
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent