Case Citator › Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks

Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
216 F.3d 626
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
79 of 79
Citing cases (total)
965
Treatment dates
2011
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks has been fully screened: all 79 flagged citations have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below.
More on how this was screened

Wilson v. United States Parole Commission adopted a certificate-of-appealability rule contrary to Walker for prisoners challenging disciplinary or parole decisions following state-court convictions or sentences. The other opinions applied Walker, rejected requests to overrule it, reported Walker's own partial overruling of Newlin v. Helman, or placed nearby treatment language on another authority or ruling.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

965 later cases cite Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks; 79 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Third Circuit declined Walker's rule that no certificate of appealability is required for a habeas challenge to a prison-board decision, holding that a certificate is required when the detention originated in a state-court conviction or sentence.

    Wilson v. United States Parole Commission · Third Circuit · filed

    Other courts of appeals that have considered the same issue have similarly construed § 2253(c)(1)(A)'s COA requirement as pivoting on whether the initial basis for the detention complained was a State court judgment or process, even when the prisoner is only challenging a decision of the prison board. Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1063 (11th Cir. 2003); Madley, 278 F.3d at 1310; Greene v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 265 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2001); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 863, 869 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). But see Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding COA was not required because “prisoner's administrative detention” was not “something that arises from process issued by the state court”). Although Coady and cases of its ilk interpreted the language of § 2253(c)(1)(A) in a slightly different context — specifically, in determining whether prison-board administrative decisions “arose out of process issued by a State court” — their approach informs the inquiry here. In determining whether a COA is required under § 2253(c)(1)(A), a court must ask whether the prisoner's detention originated from a state court conviction and/or sentence, even when the prisoner is objecting to a subsequent disciplinary or parole-related decision that is distinct from the judgment of conviction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'Brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace