Trusty v. Baker

Trusty v. Baker

Petitioner:	Marc Russell Trusty
Respondent:	Warden Renee Baker
Case Number:	3:2013cv00034
Filed:	January 24, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office:	Reno Office
Presiding Judge:	William G. Cobb
Presiding Judge:	Robert C. Jones
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
November 18, 2013	Filing 24 ORDER granting Respondents' 13 Motion to Dismiss. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
March 13, 2013	Filing 5 ORDERED the Clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (# 1 -2) upon the Rs. ( E-service performed 3/13/2013. ) FURTHER ORD answer/response due by 4/27/2013. If answer filed then P's reply due 45 days of service thereafter. FURTH ER ORD henceforth P shall serve AG copy every document submitted for consideration, together with a certificate of service. FURTHER ORD any state court exhibits shall be filed as specified herein. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded for this case to the staff attorneys in Reno. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall DETACH and FILE P's motion for counsel (ECF # 1 -3). FURTHER ORD that P's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 18, 2013

Filing 24 ORDER granting Respondents' 13 Motion to Dismiss. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

March 13, 2013

Filing 5 ORDERED the Clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (# 1 -2) upon the Rs. ( E-service performed 3/13/2013. ) FURTHER ORD answer/response due by 4/27/2013. If answer filed then P's reply due 45 days of service thereafter. FURTH ER ORD henceforth P shall serve AG copy every document submitted for consideration, together with a certificate of service. FURTHER ORD any state court exhibits shall be filed as specified herein. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded for this case to the staff attorneys in Reno. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall DETACH and FILE P's motion for counsel (ECF # 1 -3). FURTHER ORD that P's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

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: Trusty v. Baker
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Warden Renee 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 ]
Petitioner: Marc Russell Trusty
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?