Christeson v. Roper
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion *892 PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Mark Christeson's first federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely. Because his appointed attorneys-who had missed the filing deadline-could not be expected to argue that Christeson was entitled to the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, Christeson requested substitute counsel who would not be laboring under a conflict of interest. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed. In so doing, these courts contravened our decision in Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1276 , 182…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Holland v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- McFarland v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Ernest Cadet v. State of Florida Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
- Terry Edwards v. Lorie Davis, DirectorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2017
- Anastazia Schmid v. Steve McCauleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- Troy Clark v. Lorie Davis, DirectorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2017
- William Greg Thomas v. Attorney General, State of FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.