Roe

Jackson v. Roe

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 22, 200502-56210California4,473 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRED JAY JACKSON,  No. 02-56210 Petitioner-Appellant, v.  D.C. No.

CV-00-11975-DT

ERNEST C. ROE, Warden,

OPINION

Respondent-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed September 23, 2005

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Berzon

13649 JACKSON v. ROE 13651

COUNSEL

Gretchen Fusilier, Carlsbad, California, for the petitioner- appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brad D. Levenson, Deputy Attorney General, and Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, California, for the respondent-appellee. 13652 JACKSON v. ROE

OPINION

BERZON, Circuit Judge:

Fred Jackson filed a “mixed” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas cor- pus petition. The district court refused to stay…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.