Andre Brigham Young v. Mark Seling, Superintendent of the Special Commitment Center

Ninth Circuit

Andre Brigham Young v. Mark Seling, Superintendent of the Special Commitment Center

248 F.3d 1197, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3636, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4442, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695, 2001 WL 476876

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 2001

Docket98-35377

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 F.3d 1197 (Andre Brigham Young v. Mark Seling, Superintendent of the Special Commitment Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andre Brigham Young v. Mark Seling, Superintendent of the Special Commitment Center, 248 F.3d 1197, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3636, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4442, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695, 2001 WL 476876 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001), this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. Additionally, because we remand this matter to the district court, appellant’s motion for “proceedings consistent with the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court,” which was filed with this court, is denied without prejudice. Appellant may renew his motion in the district court following remand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pursuant to Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001), this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. Additionally, because we remand this matter to the district court, appellant’s motion for “proceedings consistent with the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court,” which was filed with this court, is denied without prejudice. Appellant may renew his motion in the district court following remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 F.3d 1197, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3636, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4442, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8695, 2001 WL 476876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andre-brigham-young-v-mark-seling-superintendent-of-the-special-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack