Stephen C. Shockley v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
When a federal district court refuses to hear the due-process
component of a state habeas claim because that claim was twice
presented to the State and therefore suffers a state-relitigation
bar, does the district court's refusal constitute error in light
of this Court's holding in Cone v. Bell, 566 U.S. 449 (2009)?
Does this Court's outlook change where the facts show the claim
was not relitigated in the state?
When a federal district court refuses to hear the due-process component of a state habeas claim because that claim was twice presented to the State and therefore suffers a state-relitigation bar, does the district court's refusal constitute error in light of this Court's holding in Cone v. Bell, 566 U.S. 449 (2009)?