Lopez, et al v. Stewart, et al

Petitioner: Samuel Villegas Lopez
Respondent: Terry Stewart, George Herman and Dora B Schriro
Case Number: 2:1998cv00072
Filed: January 13, 1998
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Presiding Judge: Stephen M McNamee
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
April 30, 2012 249 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER That Petitioner's 237 Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) or in the Alternative Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus isDENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 4/30/12.(MAP)
April 13, 2012 245 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Respondents' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment 243 . The response is due 4/20/12. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 4/13/12.(TLJ)
April 10, 2012 242 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER SETTING EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE that Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner's motion no later than 4/16/12 re 237 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 4/10/12. (TLJ)
September 4, 2008 206 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER and AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; granting in part and denying in part 202 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. That the Certificate of Appealability is amended to include the following issues: Whether Claim 1C of the Amended Petition a lleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and prepare the case for sentencing including failure to prepare the expert is, in part, procedurally barred. Whether Claim 1C of the Amended Petition alleging ineffective assistanc e of counsel for failure to investigate and prepare the case for sentencing including failure to prepare the expert is meritorious, to the extent not procedurally barred. Whether Claim 7 alleging that the sentencing judge failed to considerrelevant mitigating evidence is meritorious.. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 9/4/08.(DMT, )

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lopez, et al v. Stewart, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Samuel Villegas Lopez
Represented By: Kelley J Henry(Designation Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment)
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Terry Stewart
Represented By: Dawn Marie Northup
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: George Herman
Represented By: Dawn Marie Northup
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Dora B Schriro
Represented By: Dawn Marie Northup
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 [ 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?