No. 23-6276
Danny Hill v. Tim Shoop, Warden
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: aedpa bitemark-evidence constitutional-challenge federal-constitutional-rights forensic-science habeas-corpus judicial-resources newly-ripened-claims second-or-successive second-or-successive-petition
Latest Conference:
2024-05-09
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Is a habeas petition "second or successive" when the factual predicate giving rise to the petitioner's claim occurs long after the petitioner filed his initial habeas petition?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a habeas petition 'second or successive' when the factual predicate giving rise to the petitioner's claim occurs long after the petitioner filed his initial habeas petition?
Docket Entries
2024-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2024.
2024-02-15
Electronic record received from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of Ohio.
2024-02-14
Electronic record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
2024-02-13
Record Requested.
2024-02-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-25
Reply of petitioner Danny Hill filed.
2024-01-12
Brief of respondent Tim Shoop, Warden in opposition filed.
2023-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 16, 2024)
Attorneys
Danny Hill
Sharon Anne Hicks — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Tim Shoop
Michael Jason Hendershot — Ohio Attorney General's Office, Respondent