Hodge v. Miller et al
Petitioner: Blanch C. Hodge, Jr.
Respondent: Attorney General State of Colorado and Michael Miller
Case Number: 1:2013cv00706
Filed: March 18, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: Crowley
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 44 JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Attorney General State of Colorado, Michael Miller against Blanch C. Hodge, Jr., by Clerk on 1/27/2014. (trlee, )
January 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER that the pro se Application for a Writ of Habeas CorpusPursuant to 28.S.C. § 2254 1 , filed by Applicant Blanch Hodge, Jr., on March 18,2013, is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/24/2014. (trlee, ) Modified on 1/24/2014 to correct a typo (trlee, ).
July 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER to Dismiss in Part and for Answer re: 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Blanch C. Hodge, Jr. For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED that claim one of the § 2254 Application is DISMISSED as barred by the one-y ear limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). It is FURTHER ORDERED that claim three of the § 2254 Application is DISMISSED because it fails to present a federal issue cognizable on federal habeas review. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days, Respondent(s) shall file an Answer in compliance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases that fully addresses the merits of exhausted claim two of the Application. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the filing of the answer Applicant may file a reply, if he desires. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 07/17/13. (alvsl)
July 10, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/10/13, For State Court Record. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this order to the following: (1) Clerk of the Court, El Paso County District Court, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-2980; and (2) Court Services Manager, State Court Administrators Office, 1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203. (nmmsl, )
March 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER To File Pre-Answer Response, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 03/20/13. (nmmsl, )
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hodge v. Miller et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General State of Colorado
Represented By: Matthew S. Holman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Michael Miller
Represented By: Matthew S. Holman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Blanch C. Hodge, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?