Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Gregory Dickens v. Charles L. Ryan
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 23, 2014No. 08-99017Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCallahan, Circuit Judge
I concur in parts I and II of the majority opinion’s discussion. However, I respectfully dissent from part III of its discussion. The majority fails to recognize that there are three strikes against Dickens and he should be out of court. Strike one: Dickens is not eligible for the narrow exception to the exhaustion requirement that the Supreme Court recognized in Martinez v. Ryan,—U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), because he raised his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) in state court and the claim was rejected on its merits. Strike two: Dickens’s allegations that…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cullen v. PinholsterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.