Ramirez v. Baker et al
Petitioner: Armando Ramirez
Respondent: Baker and Nevada Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2013cv00025
Filed: January 17, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Valerie P. Cooke
Presiding Judge: Miranda M. Du
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
August 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER that the Petition, as amended, is denied: (1) on the merits as to Grounds 1, 2 and 4(c); and (2) on the basis of procedural default and in the alternative on the merits as to Grounds 4(a) and 4(b); a certificate of appealability is gr anted as to the rejection of Grounds 4(a) and 4(b) and is denied as to all other claims; Clerk directed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
July 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER - Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 72 ) is granted, and the time to file a supplemental reply is extended to July 25, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
June 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER granting Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 70 ) : Petitioner may file a supplemental reply to Respondents' supplemental answer (ECF No. 59 ) up to and including July 18, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/10/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
May 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER that Petitioner's motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 66 & 68 ) are granted, nunc pro tunc to the extent necessary; and the time for Petitioner to file a supplemental reply is extended up to and including Monday, June 10, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/10/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
March 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER that Respondents' motion for an enlargement of time (ECF No. 58 ) is granted nunc pro tunc in connection with the supplemental answer filed on March 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/8/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
January 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc ECF Nos. 54 Motion to Extend Time 55 Motion to Extend Time re supplement to ECF No. 41 Answer to Habeas Petition. Respondents' supplemental answer is due 2/5/2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/9/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
September 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER that Respondents will file a supplemental answer addressing all remaining claims in Ground 4 by 10/6/2018; Ramirez may file a supplemental reply within 30 days of service of the supplemental answer. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/5/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
August 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER that Ramirez to file a statement as outlined in order by 8/30/2018. See Order for specifics. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
November 15, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc ECF Nos. 37 / 38 / 40 Motion to Extend Time to file Answer to the petition. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
May 17, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER - Petitioner's motion for district judge to reconsider order (ECF No. 30 ) is denied. It is further ordered that, within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall respond to this Court's order dated July 7, 2015, and found at ECF No. 28 . Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
July 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER granting in part 24 Motion to Dismiss (see order for details). Petitioner to have 30 days to either: (1) inform the Court that he wishes to abandon the unexhausted grounds; (2) inform the Court that he wants to dismiss this petition t o return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims; or (3) file a motion for a stay, asking this court to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. If Petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted grounds, Respondents to have 30 days from Petitioner's declaration of abandonment to answer; Petitioner to reply within 30 days thereafter. Additional exhibits to be filed with separate index. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. Petitioner's unopposed 25 Motion to Extend Time is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/7/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
August 1, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 16 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents shall file response to amended petition within 60 days. Petitioner shall have 30 days from service of answer, or other response to file reply or opposition. All hard copies of exhibits shall be sent for this case to the Clerk's Office in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/1/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
May 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 13 / 14 Motions to Extend Time. Amended Petition due by 6/27/2014. The Court's prior # 12 Order is modified to instead direct that the hard copy of any additional exhibits shall be delivered for this case to the Clerk's Office in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
September 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER - The Clerk shall file the petition. Petitioner's 3 and 4 motions for appointment of counsel are granted. The FPD is provisionally appointed and shall have 30 days to undertake representation or indicate an inability to do so. The Clerk shall add AG Catherine Cortez Masto as counsel for respondents. Respondents' counsel shall enter a notice of appearance within 21 days, but no further response shall be required until further order of this Court. The Clerk shall send a c opy of this order and the petition to the petitioner, the NV AG, the FPD, and the CJA Coordinator, and shall regenerate NEFs of all prior filings to the NV AG and FPD (all mailing/service effected 9/19/2013). See order for further details. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 09/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
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: Ramirez v. Baker 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: Baker
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 ]
Petitioner: Armando Ramirez
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?