N.D.Ind.: 2254(d) “unreasonable application” review considered whether correct case law applied

In this 2254, the argument was that the state court’s application of law violated 2254’s “unreasonable” application standard, but it didn’t. The question was whether Michigan v. Long or Arizona v. Gant applies. “In sum, the State courts’ reliance on Long rather than Gant was appropriate given the finding that Calligan was not under arrest at the time of search and given that the record contained sufficient evidence to support that finding. Calligan thus cannot demonstrate that the State courts’ reliance on Long deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims. Therefore, the claim that Calligan was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure is not a basis for habeas relief.” Calligan v. Warden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233849 (N.D.Ind. Dec. 7, 2021).

The officer’s claim that a shooting isn’t a seizure without an arrest, too, is “implausible” and completely contrary to precedent. His qualified immunity claim is based on his version of the facts, not the factual disputes. Yatsko v. Graziolli, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36006 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.