Cheney #137508 v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
| Jonathan E Cheney |
| Attorney General of the State of Arizona, David Green, Scott Flecthman, Charles L Ryan and Wayne Moody |
| 3:2015cv08037 |
| March 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prescott Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Michelle H Burns |
| Steven P Logan |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
21
ORDER ADOPTING 19 Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns' Report and Recommendation. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/22/15. (EJA)
|
|
Filing
19
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 7 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Jonathan E Cheney be denied and dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proce ed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 9/15/15. (LSP)
|
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.
