Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Arthur L. Vitasek v. Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-3476 · judgment July 29, 2025
Question presented
In Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this Court held that, for the purposes of Federal habeas relief, once “A Court” determines that the trial record supports arguable claims, ...the criminal defendant is entitled to representation. 109 S.Ct. at 351. This case presents the following question: Under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), whether the Magistrate, the District Court Judge, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction to provide rulings on this case once the Magistrate determined an arguable issue existed without appointing counsel to represent the defendant on the arguable issue that the magistrate recognized.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Arthur L. Vitasek
For respondent
Tanja K. Kelly
Arizona Attorney General's Office
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 14 2025Petition DENIED.
- Sep 25 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
- Sep 10 2025Waiver of right of respondent Ryan Thornell, et al. to respond filed.
- Aug 08 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 3, 2025)