green
Positive treatment
published
Doctrinal family: Andre Marcus Bragg v. Warden Gal… ↗
Issue: explained standardWA ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Cited for
Other citing cases
- Cutrufelli v. Martinez, No. 3:20-cv-05928 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022).
- Young v. State of Nevada, No. 3:17-cv-00118 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2020).
- Furtado, No. 5:24-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2026).
- (HC) Yocom v. Allison, No. 1:21-cv-00187 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2023).
- Hendrix v. Livingston, No. 4:20-cv-04365 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2021).
- Schmidt v. Jaime, No. 4:20-cv-00219 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021).
- Valentini 268586 v. Shinn, No. 2:19-cv-00183 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2020).
- Whitfield III v. Pfeiffer, No. 3:18-cv-07106 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020).
- Vasquez v. Koenig, No. 3:19-cv-02950 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020).
- Young v. Gipson, 163 F. Supp. 3d 647 (N.D. Cal. 2015).published
Show 15 more citing cases
- White v. Ollison, 592 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (C.D. Cal. 2008).published
- Schad v. Schriro, 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 (D. Ariz. 2006).published
- Williams v. Pliler, 171 F. App'x 688 (9th Cir. 2006).unpublished
- Williams v. Schriro, 423 F. Supp. 2d 994 (D. Ariz. 2006).published
- Ralbovsky v. Kane, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005).published
- United States v. Pletcher, 73 F. App'x 970 (9th Cir. 2003).unpublished
- Chaidez v. Knowles, 258 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2003).published
- Stephenson v. Kramer, 52 F. App'x 325 (9th Cir. 2002).unpublished
- Franklin v. Small, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2001).published
- Bennett v. Stewart, 18 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2001).unpublished
- Earp v. Ornoski, No. 03-99005 (9th Cir. Dec. 15, 2005).published
- Ricky Lee Earp v. John Stokes, Warden, of California State Prison at San Quentin, 423 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005).published
- Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2005).published
- Williamson v. Miller-Stout, 135 F. App'x 958 (9th Cir. 2005).unpublished
- Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jeanne Woodford, 301 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andre Marcus BRAGG, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Warden GALAZA, Respondent-Appellee
v.
Warden GALAZA, Respondent-Appellee
99-16636.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 12, 2001.
Published opinion
253 F.3d 1150
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4823
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12402
2001 WL 641096
Quin Denvir, Federal Defender; Daniel J. Broderick, Chief Assistant Federal Defender; Carolyn M. Wiggin, Staff Attorney; Allison Claire, Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, California, for the petitioner-appellant., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Robert R. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Arnold O. Overoye, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Mathew Chan, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for the respondent-appellee.
O'Scannlain, Leayy, Gould.
Cited by 73 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
ORDER
This court’s opinion, filed March 12, 2001, is amended as follows:
1. On page 3110 of the slip, the first sentence of the second full paragraph reads:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual ambiguities.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentence:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to resolve any factual ambiguities.
2. On page 3111 of the slip, the last sentence before the Conclusion reads:
Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evi-dentiary hearing.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentences:
Diligence would require at least one step or the other to develop the factual basis of his claim. Bragg made no such efforts. Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
With these amendments, the petition for rehearing dated March 21, 2001, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.