Lee v. Palmer et al
Petitioner: Bartley Damien Lee
Respondent: Nevada Attorney General and Jack Palmer
Case Number: 3:2010cv00355
Filed: June 11, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
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
September 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER denying 32 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. A certificate of appealability is granted on the following issues (see order for details). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 09/30/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
September 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDERED that Rs' # 36 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. Ground 5 is unexhausted. FURTHER ORD that P shall have 30 days to file a motion for dismissal without prejudice of the entire petition, for partial dismissal of ground 5, or for other appropriate relief. Within 10 days of filing such motion, P must file a signed declaration as specified herein. FURTHER ORD that if P elects to dismiss the aforementioned grounds of his # 32 Second amended petition and proceed on the remaining gro unds, Rs shall file and serve an answer to the remaining grounds within 45 days after P serves his declaration dismissing those grounds. FURTHER ORD that if Rs file and serve an answer, P shall have 45 days from the date on which the answer is served to file and serve a reply. FURTHER ORD that Rs' # 37 Renewed motion for leave to file pre sentence report under seal is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 9/4/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
November 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's unopposed motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (fourth request) 30 is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have through 11/18/2011 to file a second amended petition. (Second Amended Petition due by 11/18/2011.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 11/15/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
August 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER GRANTING 26 Motion to Extend Time. P's Second Amended Petition due by 10/21/2011. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 8/22/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
March 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDERED that Rs' motion to dismiss (#12) is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that the FPD is provisionally appointed to represent P. FURTHER ORD that the FPD shall have until 4/22/1011 to undertake direct representation of P or to indicate to the court her inability to represent P in these proceedings. If the FPD does undertake representation of P, she shall then have sixty (60) days to file a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. FURTHER ORD that the clerk shall electronically serve the FPD a copy of the # 10 Amended petition and a copy of this order. ( Electronic service of order performed concurrently with filing of this Order; Petition service performed by #10 NEF re-generation ) FURTHER ORD that Rs' # 18 Motion for leave to file presentence report in camera and under seal is DENIED. ( Copy of Order mailed to P 3/24/2011. ) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 3/23/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
October 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDERED that ground 3 of the # 10 Amended petition is DISMISSED. FURTHER ORD Rs' answer/response to 10 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 12/13/2010; P's reply due 45 days thereafter. FURTHER ORD henceforth P shall serve Rs w copy of every pleading submitted for consideration w a certificate of mailing. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 10/28/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
August 4, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 5 JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudicefor petitioners failure to comply with the courts order 3 . Signed by Lance S. Wilson on 08/04/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
August 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for petitioners failure to comply with the courts order 3 . The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 08/03/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lee v. Palmer et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Bartley Damien Lee
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: Nevada Attorney General
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: Jack Palmer
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?