Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Ricardo Valdez v. Walker, C.O., et al.
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-15776 · judgment November 12, 2020
Questions presented
1.) Ca/\ feJ.&Ae. C,V. F<-qC Fbc iKc Fur.fase Otf obT^.'nv 06 fceUeJF froM Tk of<-f AtiV\ 3o(),3evve«\r^ e^tioo^I C»rc^»ojT^^Cej <?i^TedXsaaW ai m:(''K)o^t- v. Zi.S: 23.x n.^ tinFWH^Cc.vrdeJgg^Tcjho v<s 1i\y ^cyWIoi anJ incc\rjer^T«d anJ TVverfiS^vf Unable To AtVe^ct?. ckcS c5^Jenc) \Fj >, draoTe) tx\ief IS live" Ar^u^ec is VeS. On QoftsVo^ aWfc, I mjouIJ “7b eo /.'/<■€ lo knou ,«f ^ C\V CoaTenTv'oo 0>? FeJ S^£i^ fr" (oQMLI Coo/T of /A^Ce^iV eK-cci token ;r Xsnone<S CooWeJTbAT £^«ort-,l C>Vcj^T6oc«s e**Te<S in C<oe becqyJe QfAof ZP Ct'KnS (a,-t v. Vo6(!^Q ITI rjo/^ diJnT ^f€<=ik FnA'A; uns xll^r-er^x ln<A ^ PK'nHiff <4fd n&T underjTc,nJ fcoMk/ Fs ■ t>.A/. V. Zbo ACeelief GrcnTeS bec^ose A - ... T>lsT fWWKffi c^nt.va Courts ^ A V=.n0o-se /»„.fEntToa R5^«'u)«nT cL'OnT Qni W«» »«N4- ^ utt Fn) kxiu, ■|1|J,. f.\a fv.fci ,'f qdWl Cmte^^S TK-.T Osins F^l g. C.'v Proc &Q(b) fl^inti'FF aX-Mo P<n'°X e-JdS froc LO(b\ as o 2«J /Went Uib-cn % Attack U«itfW.V\5 SuJs^e^C 3.) T5\3 O^Te ecJ wW, It Audios To AW*! Prl-ioa AMU 0°* «»'« Oj±«l2i V. L^ck hv-i -mc. ■?<■<■ CnraS IWsV. f.J R. Civ. fee tofcifc At iAuA IJ= A<W«ss li *f „&,« TUT PtalotlSf WoA w« .SYle Tv-ely UeoSlwo lo officer Wou sSoC ATo Cov«^
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Ricardo Valdez
For respondent
Michelle Devorah Igra
California Department of Justice - Office of the A
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 04 2021Petition DENIED.
- Jul 22 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Jul 15 2021Waiver of right of respondent Walker, et al. to respond filed.
- Jun 04 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2021)