Legal Opinion

Alfred Copeland v. Charles Ryan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 28, 2017No. 16-15849PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Concurrence by Judge BERZON

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Respondent Charles L. Ryan, as Director of the Arizona Department of Cor*903rections, appeals the district court’s interlocutory orders requiring him to reimburse Petitioner AJfred Copeland for deposition expenses incurred in Copeland’s pending habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. We conclude that a district court cannot order a state to reimburse an indigent habeas petitioner for deposition expenses in a § 2254 habeas proceeding when, as here, the state did not…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Swint v. Chambers County CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Will v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Eric David Boudette v. John Barnette, Police Officer James Vaughn, Police OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  5. United States v. Richard A. HornCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Juan Castillo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  2. Stark v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2025
  3. Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline CiufoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
  4. Blanchard v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2021
  5. Christian Walker v. E. McDanielCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API