Erickson v. Benedetti, et al
| Ryatt Dale Erickson |
| Jim Benedetti and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2009cv00085 |
| February 12, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Carson City |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Brian E. Sandoval |
| 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
24
JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to court order filed on July 14, 2010, Document 23 . Signed by Lance S. Wilson on 7/15/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. FURTHER ORDERED, all pending motions ( 15 & 20 ) are DENIED without prejudice as moot. Respondents need not file the additional exhibits that are the subject of the extension 20 motion. The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/14/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. IT IS ORDERED that the Court holds that the following claims are not exhausted: (1) the claims in Ground 1 that petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to interv iew witnesses in the holding cell, failed to inspect the alleged weapon used in the attack on the deputy, and failed to conduct any investigation at all into the facts of the case; (2) the claims in Ground 1 based upon a denial of due process and a d enial of equal protection;(3) the claims in Ground 2 that petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because counsel improperly informed petitioner that he never would have a chance of winning the case, erroneously advised and coerce d him into taking a plea bargain, and had a conflict of interest because petitioner requested appointment of a different attorney; (4) the claims in Ground 2 based upon a denial of due process and a denial of equal protection; and (5) Grounds 3 throu gh 6 in their entirety. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this order within which to mail for filing either a motion for dismissal without prejudice of the entire petition, for partial dismissal only of t he above-listed claims, and/or for other appropriate relief. The entire petition will be dismissed for lack of complete exhaustion if an appropriate motion is not timely filed. (Motion for dismissal without prejudice of the entire petition, for partial dismissal only of the above-listed claims, and/or for other appropriate relief due by 4/28/2010.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/29/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EM)
|
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.
