Gregory Dickens v. Dora Schriro
Petitioner - Appellant,: GREGORY DICKENS
Respondent - Appellee,: DORA B. SCHRIRO
Case Number: 08-99017
Filed: August 20, 2008
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus: Death Penalty

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
August 3, 2012 Summary Dickens v. Ryan
January 4, 2013 Summary GREGORY DICKENS V. CHARLES L. RYAN
January 23, 2014 Summary GREGORY DICKENS V. CHARLES L. RYAN
March 11, 2014 Summary GREGORY DICKENS V. CHARLES L. RYAN

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 9025839460 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (ALEX KOZINSKI, HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA, N. RANDY SMITH, MARY H. MURGUIA, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and PAUL J. WATFORD)(CMC Dissents) Gregory Scott Dickens appealed the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. In a divided en banc opinion, we affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the district court s judgment. See Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302, 1322 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The court was later advised that Dickens died on January 27, 2014 four days after the publication of our opinion. On January 29, 2014, the state of Arizona moved to stay the mandate, vacate the filed opinion, and dismiss the petition as moot. Because the state has failed to demonstrate . . . equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur, U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994), we deny the state s motion. No party disputes that we had jurisdiction at the time we decided this case. The untimely death of Dickens after our decision had been rendered does not deprive [this] court of jurisdiction retroactively. Armster v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 806 F.2d 1347, 1353 (9th Cir. 1986).1 In these circumstances, while we are not precluded from exercising article III power, we are likewise not prohibited from dismissing the case post hoc. Id. at 1355. The decision whether to vacate a filed opinion based on post hoc mootness is within our discretion based on equity. United States v. Payton, 593 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). In exercising our discretion, the lack of prejudice weighs heavily in favor of denying the motion. Both parties claims have been subjected to en banc review. Neither party is entitled to additional appellate review, because the decision to grant a petition for certiorari is discretionary. Dickens will not receive the hearing to which he would otherwise have been entitled, see Dickens 740 F.3d 1321 22, but only the defense who opposes vacatur will be prejudiced by that result.2 Furthermore, judicial precedents are not merely the property of private litigants, but are valuable to the legal community as a whole. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co., 513 U.S. at 26. The precedent set by the en banc panel in this case will undoubtedly affect cases now pending before this court. We see no reason to undo this precedent and force future panels to duplicate our efforts by re-deciding issues we have already resolved within the contours of article III. The state s motion is DENIED. [9010109]
Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Gregory Dickens v. Dora Schriro
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner - appellant,: GREGORY DICKENS
Represented By: Dale A. Baich
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent - appellee,: DORA B. SCHRIRO
Represented By: John Pressley Todd
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?