Stephen May v. David Shinn

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 10, 202217-15603California6,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN EDWARD MAY, Nos. 17-15603 Petitioner-Appellee/ 17-15704 Cross-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:14-cv-00409-

NVW

DAVID SHINN, Director; MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellants/ ORDER Cross-Appellees.

Filed June 10, 2022

Before: Sandra S. Ikuta and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block, * District Judge.

Order; Concurrence by Judge Block

* The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. SUMMARY **

Habeas Corpus / Mandates

Denying Stephen Edward May’s motion to recall a mandate, the panel wrote (1) motions that assert a judgment is void because of a jurisdictional defect generally must show that the court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction, (2) May has not met that standard in arguing that the statutory “in-custody” requirement was satisfied, and (3) the additional details provided in the motion and accompanying exhibits do not demonstrate this Court’s holding…

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.