Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

Chinn v. Jenkins

Case No. 3:02-cv-512 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2017)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Chinn v. Jenkins

2 Citing cases

  1. Turner v. Hudson

    Case No. 2:07-cv-595 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2017)   Cited 6 times
    In Turner v. Hudson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202425 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2017), and Bays v. Warden, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200400 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2017), the undersigned rejected this argument, noting that "[a]lthough Campbell only expressly addressed Eighth Amendment claims, its logic [method of execution claims, per Glossip, must be brought in a ยง 1983 case] is fully applicable to the statutory fundamental defect claim."

    For example, in the Decision and Order permitting the most recent amendments in this case, the undersigned wrote: Petitioner asserts these proposed new claims are cognizable in habeas corpus under the Sixth Circuit's decision in Adams v. Bradshaw, 826 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2016)(Adams III). The Warden disputes that claim, but this Court has found parallel claims in other capital habeas corpus cases to be cognizable under Adams III. See, e.g. Smith v. Pineda, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50346, *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2017); Tibbetts v. Warden, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51968 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2017); Chinn v. Jenkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56019 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2017). Simple application of stare decisis requires finding the proposed new claims are cognizable.

  2. Turner v. Hudson

    Case No. 2:07-cv-595 (S.D. Ohio May. 31, 2017)

    CognizabilityPetitioner asserts these proposed new claims are cognizable in habeas corpus under the Sixth Circuit's decision in Adams v. Bradshaw, 826 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2016)(Adams III). The Warden disputes that claim, but this Court has found parallel claims in other capital habeas corpus cases to be cognizable under Adams III. See, e.g. Smith v. Pineda, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50346, *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2017); Tibbetts v. Warden, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51968 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2017); Chinn v. Jenkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56019 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2017). Simple application of stare decisis requires finding the proposed new claims are cognizable.