Romero v. Schriro et al
| Valentino J Romero |
| Dora L. Schriro and Arizona Attorney General, State of |
| 2:2007cv01207 |
| June 19, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Stephen M McNamee |
| Bernardo P Velasco (PS) |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
12
MEMORANUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge, re: 11 Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, terminating this case; the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/27/08. (REW, )
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus : Recommending that the Petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative, dismiss action as untimely.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernardo P Velasco on 9/26/08. (DMT, )
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee. If Petitioner fails to pay the filing fee, the Clerk must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 06/28/07.(DNH)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
