No. 24-672
Erma Wilson v. Midland County, Texas, et al.
Tags: circuit-split criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus section-1983 statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2025-06-26
(distributed 4 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. If a person never had access to § 2254 to impugn the constitutionality of her state criminal proceeding, is § 1983 presumptively available (as in six circuits), or must she always use state law instead (as in five)?
2. Is a § 1983 damages claim that impugns the constitutionality of a state criminal proceeding always analogous to a claim of malicious prosecution?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
If a person never had access to § 2254 to impugn the constitutionality of her state criminal proceeding, is § 1983 presumptively available (as in six circuits), or must she always use state law instead (as in five)?
Docket Entries
2026-01-07
Supplemental brief of petitioner Erma Wilson filed.
2025-06-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
2025-06-17
Rescheduled.
2025-06-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2025.
2025-04-30
Rescheduled.
2025-04-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2025.
2025-04-22
Reply of petitioner Erma Wilson filed. (Distributed)
2025-04-22
Reply of Erma Wilson submitted.
2025-04-09
Brief of respondent Albert Schorre, Jr. in opposition filed.
2025-04-09
Brief of respondents Midland County, Texas, et al. in opposition filed.
2025-04-09
Brief of Albert Schorre, Jr. in opposition submitted.
2025-04-09
Brief of Midland County, Texas and Weldon (Ralph) Petty, Jr. in opposition submitted.
2025-02-25
Motion of Albert Schorre, Jr. to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 11, 2025, for all respondents.
2025-02-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 11, 2025, for all respondents.
2025-02-22
Motion of Albert Schorre, Jr. to extend the time to file a response from March 12, 2025 to April 11, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-02-22
Motion of Albert Schorre, Jr. for an extension of time submitted.
2025-02-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 12, 2025 to April 11, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-02-21
Motion of Midland County, Texas and Weldon (Ralph) Petty, Jr. for an extension of time submitted.
2025-02-10
Response Requested. (Due March 12, 2025)
2025-02-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-21
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
2025-01-21
Amicus brief of Cato Institute submitted.
2025-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent Midland County, Texas and Weldon (Ralph) Petty, Jr. to respond filed.
2025-01-17
Waiver of Midland County, Texas and Weldon (Ralph) Petty, Jr. of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-13
Waiver of right of respondent Albert Schorre, Jr. to respond filed.
2025-01-13
Waiver of Albert Schorre, Jr. of right to respond submitted.
2024-12-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2025)
Attorneys
Albert Schorre, Jr
Randall L. Rouse — Lynch, Chappell & Alsup PC, Respondent
Albert Schorre, Jr.
Steven Carroll Kiser — Lynch, Chappell & Alsup, P.C., Respondent
Cato Institute
Clark M. Neily III — Cato Institute, Amicus
Erma Wilson
Jaba Tsitsuashvili — Institute for Justice, Petitioner
Robert James McNamara — Institute for Justice, Petitioner
Midland County, Texas and Weldon (Ralph) Petty, Jr.
Philip Wade Savrin — Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Respondent
Richard Layne Rouse — Shafer, Davis, O'Leary & Stoker, Respondent