Legal Opinion

Bradley Bieganski v. David Shinn, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided January 30, 2026No. 2:21-cv-01684Unknown

1Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bradley Bieganski, No. CV-21-01684-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to enforce the mandate. (Doc. 45.) 16 For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. 17 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 18 This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In July 2023, the Court 19 denied relief. (Doc. 31.) 20 On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Bieganski v. Shinn,

149 F.4th 1055

21 (9th Cir. 2025). The final portion of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hasmik Chinaryan v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API