No. 22-6153

Vincent Johnson v. Tim Shoop, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-11-23
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-procedure buck-v-davis certificate-of-appealability civil-rights due-process habeas-corpus miller-el-standard miller-el-v-cockrell procedural-due-process sixth-circuit supreme-court-review
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. What is the correct mechanism and procedure which would allow
a petitioner to present a COA violation made by a Circuit court pursuant
to Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 and Buck v. Davis 137 S. Ct. 759,
to the appellate court once Certiorari has been denied by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

2* Did the District court's decission to deny petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 1631
motion, violate petitioner's procedural due process rights.

3. Did the Sixth Circuit go beyond a threshold inquiry pursuant to
Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 and Buck v. Davis 137 S. Ct. 759.
In it's Agust, 12, 2022, order denying petitioner's COA application.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

What is the correct mechanism and procedure to present a COA violation made by a Circuit court to the appellate court after Certiorari denial?

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop to respond filed.
2022-11-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 23, 2022)

Attorneys

Tim Shoop
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Vincent Johnson
Vincent Johnson — Petitioner