Thomas Hargrove v. Mike Obenland

Thomas Hargrove v. Mike Obenland

Petitioner:	THOMAS RANDALL HARGROVE
Respondent:	MIKE OBENLAND, Superintendent of Wash. State Reformatory
Case Number:	19-71232
Filed:	May 20, 2019
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
July 17, 2019	Filing 2 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and RICHARD R. CLIFTON) In this application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, the applicant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The applicant raised multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, case number 2:02-cv-05086, decided on February 14, 2003. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1999) ([W]e will not consider new factual grounds in support of the same legal claim that was previously presented.). With respect to the applicants remaining claim of actual innocence, assuming without deciding that the applicant may bring a freestanding actual innocence claim, the application is denied. There were no declarations or affidavits submitted with this application. Assuming, however, that the allegations in the application can be substantiated with competent evidence, the applicant nevertheless has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B) that (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. [11365988] (WL) [Entered: 07/17/2019 09:12 AM]
May 20, 2019	Filing 1 Application for leave to file a second or successive petition filed. (Research) [11302330] (JMR) [Entered: 05/20/2019 09:24 AM]

Date Filed

Document Text

July 17, 2019

Filing 2 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and RICHARD R. CLIFTON) In this application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, the applicant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The applicant raised multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, case number 2:02-cv-05086, decided on February 14, 2003. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1999) ([W]e will not consider new factual grounds in support of the same legal claim that was previously presented.). With respect to the applicants remaining claim of actual innocence, assuming without deciding that the applicant may bring a freestanding actual innocence claim, the application is denied. There were no declarations or affidavits submitted with this application. Assuming, however, that the allegations in the application can be substantiated with competent evidence, the applicant nevertheless has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B) that (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. [11365988] (WL) [Entered: 07/17/2019 09:12 AM]

May 20, 2019

Filing 1 Application for leave to file a second or successive petition filed. (Research) [11302330] (JMR) [Entered: 05/20/2019 09:24 AM]

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: Thomas Hargrove v. Mike Obenland
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: THOMAS RANDALL HARGROVE
Represented By:	Jeffrey E. Ellis
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: MIKE OBENLAND, Superintendent of Wash. State Reformatory
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?