Appeals of state convictions
Owens v. Comerford
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Gregory Owens asked the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to let him appeal his federal constitutional claims, including his argument that the federal law governing state-prisoner challenges, 28 U.S.C. §2254, is unconstitutional after Loper Bright.
- Who it affects
- Owens received no Supreme Court review in this proceeding, and the Court did not decide his underlying claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case and did not decide those arguments.
Owens challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to let him appeal his constitutional claims, including his argument that 28 U.S.C. §2254 is unconstitutional after Loper Bright.
Question presented
1. WHETHER ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS TO THE CLAIMS RAISED WHERE PETITIONER MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. §2253? 2. WHETHER ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON CLAIM THAT 28 U.S.C. §2254 IS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED IN LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO. 144 S. CT. 2244 (2024)?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.