Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
N.D. California· 6/14/1996

Ashmus v. Calderon

Citations

  • 935 F. Supp. 1048
  • 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10902
  • 1996 WL 430920

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rebuffing efforts by defendants to redefine the class to exclude proposed class members who did not currently have pending federal habeas claims
  • finding “[Defendants’ assertions would thus secure for the State the benefits of the Act, regardless of whether California actually provides the competent counsel that states are required by Congress to give plaintiffs as a quid pro quo for receiving [Chapter 154’s] benefits.”
  • also noting respondent’s admission that “[e]very inmate who is awaiting appointment of counsel has been ‘offered’ counsel and that offer has been accepted; what is pending is the appointment itself’ ’
  • “[S]olely by virtue of the fact that two to three ‘unnamed and unknown future’ persons are being added to the class each month, joinder in this case is ‘inherently impracticable.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thelton E. Henderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases named Ashmus v. Calderon

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.