Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney

Ninth Circuit

Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney

969 F.2d 839, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10087, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6365, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 16288, 1992 WL 166290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1992

Docket90-35315

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 969 F.2d 839 (Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney) 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

Jose Tamayo-Reyes v. J.C. Keeney, 969 F.2d 839, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10087, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6365, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 16288, 1992 WL 166290 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

*840 The mandate of the United States Supreme Court, certified on June 5, 1992, in Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Tamayo-Reyes, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318, reversed the judgment of this court reported at 926 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. The district court shall determine whether Tamayo-Reyes can show (1) cause for his failure to develop the facts in state-court proceedings and (2) actual prejudice. If he can make such a showing, he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing in connection with the claim he presents in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If he cannot make such a showing, the district court shall determine if his failure to develop his claim in state-court proceedings shall be excused and a hearing mandated because the failure to .hold a federal evidentiary hearing would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

This panel retains jurisdiction of this matter with respect to any appeal' or writ resulting from the district court’s proceedings on remand.

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

*840 The mandate of the United States Supreme Court, certified on June 5, 1992, in Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Tamayo-Reyes, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318, reversed the judgment of this court reported at 926 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. The district court shall determine whether Tamayo-Reyes can show (1) cause for his failure to develop the facts in state-court proceedings and (2) actual prejudice. If he can make such a showing, he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing in connection with the claim he presents in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If he cannot make such a showing, the district court shall determine if his failure to develop his claim in state-court proceedings shall be excused and a hearing mandated because the failure to .hold a federal evidentiary hearing would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

This panel retains jurisdiction of this matter with respect to any appeal' or writ resulting from the district court’s proceedings on remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

969 F.2d 839, 92 Daily Journal DAR 10087, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6365, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 16288, 1992 WL 166290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-tamayo-reyes-v-jc-keeney-ca9-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack