Legal Opinion

Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 28, 2015No. 12-16935, 13-15050PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

The two appeals consolidated in this opinion require us to identify the appropriate standard for determining whether a *995claim is cognizable under the federal habe-as statute.1 Applying Skinner v. Switzer, we conclude that a Claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable in habeas only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody. 562 U.S. 521, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1299 n. 13, 179 L.Ed.2d 233…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Jones v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Muhammad v. CloseSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. Humphrey v. CadySupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. (HC) Barnes v. WarrenDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  2. (HC) Bowens v. HillDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. (HC) Craig v. D'AgostiniDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  4. (HC) Davis v. KeranDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  5. (HC) Edwards v. County of SacramentoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

13 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