Blankenship v. Vare et al
| D. E. Blankenship, Jr. |
| Leonard Vare and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2008cv00641 |
| December 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Washoe |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Larry R. Hicks |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
36
JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 10 petition is DENIED on the merits andthat this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 2/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED that the petition shall be DENIED on the merits and that this action shall be DISMISSED with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED, a certificate of appealabiliity is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, the Clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 19 motion for stay pending permission to appeal is DENIED. The Court denied P's motion requesting leave to seek permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. This case shall move forward in the district court as per the deadlines set in 13 , at 6, lines 6-7 & 26-28. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/16/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER re 10 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. IT IS ORDERED that, within sixty (60) days of entry of this order, petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE in writing:(a)why the remaining claims in Ground 1(a) should not be dismissed with prejudice on the merits;(b)why Ground 1(b) should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;(c)why Ground 1(c) should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;(d)why Ground 1(d) should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;(e)why, in the alte rnative, the petition is not subject to dismissal as a mixed petition because Ground 1(d) is not exhausted;(f)why Ground 1(e) should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;(g)why Ground 2(a) should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barr ed;(h)why, in the alternative, the petition is not subject to dismissal as a mixed petition because Ground 2(a) is not exhausted;(i)why Ground 2(b) should not be dismissed as time-barred except for claims based upon testimony that petitioner had a hi story of violence and that his children were removed from his home after the allegations were made;(j)why, in the alternative, the entirety of Ground 2(b) should not be dismissed with prejudice as procedurally defaulted;(k)why Ground 4 should not be dismissed with prejudice as procedurally defaulted;(l)why, in the alternative, Ground 4 should not be dismissed with prejudice on the merits;(m)why Ground 5 should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred; and(n)why, in the alternative, Ground 5 should not be dismissed with prejudice on the merits. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ground 1(a) is DISMISSED IN PART for failure to state a sufficiently specific claim, to the extent that the claim alleges that the two investigations were "in di ametric opposition" and to the extent that the claim refers to unspecified "questions of jurisdiction." See order re further specifics. ( Show Cause Response due by 4/1/2010.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/28/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
|
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 Nevada 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.
