Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Daniel Hansen v. Rick Thaler, Director, 12-20343 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 12-20343 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-20343 Document: 00512299519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 8, 2013 No. 12-20343 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DANIEL SERGIO HANSEN, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4
More
Case: 12-20343 Document: 00512299519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 8, 2013 No. 12-20343 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DANIEL SERGIO HANSEN, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-1056 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. In supplemental briefing filed by the parties after our previous opinion on rehearing, it has come to our attention that the state courts are now moving forward with Hansen’s state habeas application. In the light of that activity, we * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-20343 Document: 00512299519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 No. 12-20343 cannot say that there is an absence of available State corrective process or that circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect Hansen’s rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). We therefore withdraw our previous opinions in this case and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court dismissing Hansen’s federal habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer