BREWER

v.

OVERBERG, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• McDONNELL v. Estelle, 666 F.2d 246 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …hat the prejudice was caused by the delay. Rule 9(a); Mayola v. State of Alabama, 623 F. 2d 992, 999 (5th Cir. 1980); cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1986, 68 L.Ed.2d 302 (1981); Baxter v. Estelle, 614 F. 2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1085, 101 S.Ct. 873, 66 L.Ed.2d 810 (1981); Paprskar v. Estelle, supra. See also Davis, supra at 416. If the state makes a prima facie showing that it has been prejudiced as a result of the petitioner’s delay, the burden shifts to the petitioner to show…
• Walker v. Engle, 703 F.2d 959 (6th Cir. 1983)
  …irement. There is ample authority that when there is a plain error exception in state law, we can reach the merits absent any Sykes analysis, if the alleged infirmities amount to plain error. Brewer v. Overberg, 624 F. 2d 51 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1085, 101 S.Ct. 873, 66 L.Ed.2d 810 (1980); Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F. 2d 515 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 955, 99 S.Ct. 354, 58 L.Ed.2d 347 (1978); Rachel v. Bordenkircher, 590 F. 2d 200 (6th Cir.1978); Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F. 2d 117 (6th Cir…
• Harris v. Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …at 251; Rule 9(a). The ultimate disposition of whether the petitioner used reasonable diligence is “based upon the reasonableness of the party’s behavior under the circumstances.” Baxter v. Estelle, 614 F. 2d 1030, 1034 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1085, 101 S.Ct. 873, 66 L.Ed.2d 810 (1981). The State has made a sufficient showing that it has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition because of Harris’ delay in asserting the claim. Courts have found prejudice under Rule 9(a) where…