Douglas James v. R.A. Giles, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that habeas corpus petitioners 1 should be allowed a “meaningful opportunity to amend”
• declining to address the issuance of a COA “on a ground never raised by the parties”
• stating that pro se habeas litigants are entitled to a \statement of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome [any] deficiency unless it clearly appears from the complaint that the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment\ (internal quotations omitted)
• stating that pro se habeas litigants are entitled to a “statement of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome [any] deficiency unless it clearly appears from the complaint that the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment” (internal quotations omitted)
• finding petitioner has the right to delete unexhausted claims from a 3 mixed petition in lieu of suffering dismissal
• “The State here argues that, because James’ motion in this court for a certificate of appealability was made prior to the adoption of 9th Cir. R. 22-l(c), the State cannot be bound by a failure to file a response.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).