No. 25-5528
Arthur L. Vitasek v. Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arguable-claims criminal-defendant habeas-relief judicial-jurisdiction magistrate-determination ninth-circuit-procedure
Latest Conference:
2025-10-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
Under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), whether the Magistrate, the District Court Judge, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction to provide rulings on this case once the Magistrate determined an arguable issue existed without appointing counsel to represent the defendant on the arguable issue that the magistrate recognized.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Magistrate, District Court Judge, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction after determining an arguable issue existed without appointing counsel to represent the defendant
Docket Entries
2025-10-14
Petition DENIED.
2025-09-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
2025-09-10
Waiver of right of respondent Ryan Thornell, et al. to respond filed.
2025-08-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 3, 2025)
Attorneys
Arthur Vitasek
Arthur L. Vitasek — Petitioner
Ryan Thornell, et al.
Tanja K. Kelly — Arizona Attorney General's Office, Respondent