STEPHEN MAY V. DAVID SHINN, No. 17-15603 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseDenying Petitioner’s motion to recall a mandate, the Ninth Circuit wrote (1) motions that assert a judgment is void because of a jurisdictional defect generally must show that the court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction, (2) Petitioner has not met that standard in arguing that the statutory “in-custody” requirement was satisfied, and (3) the additional details provided in the motion and accompanying exhibits do not demonstrate the Ninth Circuit’s holding on mootness lacked an arguable basis.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Mandates. Denying Stephen Edward May’s motion to recall a mandate, the panel wrote (1) motions that assert a judgment is void because of a jurisdictional defect generally must show that the court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction, (2) May has not met that standard in arguing that the statutory “in-custody” requirement was satisfied, and (3) the additional details provided in the motion and accompanying exhibits do not demonstrate this Court’s holding on mootness lacked an arguable basis. Constrained by his oath of office to concur in his colleagues’ decision rejecting May’s last effort to escape lifetime incarceration, District Judge Block wrote separately to reinforce Judge Friedland’s conclusion that “this case, an in particular May’s sentence, reflects poorly on our legal system,” May v. Shinn, 954 F.3d 1194, 1209 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied 141 S. Ct. 1740 (2021), and that justice compels that May’s sentence be commuted by the State of Arizona.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 26, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.