Legal Opinion

Chrisman v. Howell

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided September 8, 2020No. 2:19-cv-01219Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 MICHAEL CHRISMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-01219-KJD-EJY 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 WARDEN JERRY HOWELL, 15 Respondents. 16 17 This is a counseled habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the 18 court are the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), respondents' motion to dismiss 19 (ECF No. 15), petitioner's opposition (ECF No. 26), and respondents' reply (ECF No. 29). 20 Respondents argue that ground 1 is only a claim of error of state law. The court disagrees, and 21 the court denies the motion…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Pulley v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Bradshaw v. RicheySupreme Court of the United States · 2005

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