Skip to content

Ryan v. Hurles

Petition for certiorari denied on December 1, 2014

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
14-191 9th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2014

Issue: (1) Whether, under this Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, post-conviction counsel's ineffectiveness can provide cause to excuse the procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim, or whether Martinez v. Ryan is limited to excusing only the default of a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) whether, under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a state-court adjudication of a judicial-bias claim is per se unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) merely because the allegedly biased judge rules on the claim based on facts within her knowledge without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, or whether a federal court must grant AEDPA deference to the judge's determination when the evidence in the state-court record supports it.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
08/14/2014Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 18, 2014)
09/18/2014Brief of respondent Richard D. Hurles in opposition filed.
09/18/2014Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Richard D. Hurles.
10/02/2014Reply of petitioner Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections filed.
10/08/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 31, 2014.
11/03/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.
11/10/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2014.
11/17/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2014.
12/01/2014Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
12/01/2014Petition DENIED.