Stanley v. Ryan

Petitioner: Milo McCormick Stanley
Respondent: Charles L Ryan
Case Number: 2:1998cv00430
Filed: March 9, 1998
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Presiding Judge: Neil V Wake
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
October 17, 2011 145 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Respondents' 139 Motion for Reconsideration; the Clerk shall strike from the district court record all of the exhibits filed under Document 136, Exhibit A thru J, and Exhibit K, filed under Document 140; the Clerk shall strike from the district court record all of the exhibits filed under Document 118, Exhibits A-G, Exhibit I filed under Document 123, and Exhibit H, filed under Document 133. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/17/11.(REW)
September 21, 2011 141 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER requiring that Petitioner provide a response to Respondents' 139 motion for reconsideration and their motion to strike within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/21/2011. (ALS)
September 9, 2011 138 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Petitioner's motion to file the attachedexhibits. (Doc. 136.) All of the documents previously noticed as filed shall be construed as part of the record without further Order of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDER ED granting leave for Petitioner to file a copy of the video deposition of Leonardo Garcia-Bunuel, M.D. pursuant to Adm. Manual § II.K.2. Petitioner shall also electronically submit a notice of filing documenting the non-electronic filing of the video deposition and attach a copy of the notice to the video exhibit. (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/9/11.(LAD)
August 26, 2011 134 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER, Respondents' 116 motion to vacate the federal evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 7 and 8, 2011, is granted; Petitioner's 121 , 122 motions to schedule the testimony of Dr Garcia-Bunuel and Barbara Spencer are denied as moot; vacating the 8/30/11 pre-hearing status conference; Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on sentencing counsel's failure to provide defense mental health experts with evidence that might have been used in miti gation at sentencing, raised as part of Claim 5 in Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 33 , is denied with prejudice; the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly; granting a CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY on the following issue : Whether a subpart of Claim 5, alleging that Petitioner's right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated by sentencing counsel's failure to provide defense mental health experts with evidence that would have provided mitigation at sentencing, fails on the merits. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/25/11. (REW)
June 9, 2011 110 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - granting Petitioner's unopposed motion for an extension of time. (Doc. 109.) By no later than June 17, 2011, Petitioner shall file his supplemental brief regarding the effect of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) on this case. Respondents shall have fifteen (15) days to respond and Petitioner shall have ten (10) days to reply. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/9/11.(KMG)
May 27, 2011 108 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER, Respondents' objection to the expert testimony of Attorney Tim Ford at the evidentiary hearing is denied 105 ; as limited by the terms of this Order, the Court authorizes Mr Ford to testify as an expert on behalf of Petitioner at the evi dentiary hearing; the discovery deposition of Mr Ford set for 6/2/11, may go forward as scheduled; scheduling supplemental briefing on the effect of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) on this case; within 15 days, Petitioner shall brief the appropriate habeas review of the remaining IAC issue in this case, and the relevance of evidence to be developed at the upcoming federal evidentiary hearing that was not before the state court; Respondents shall have 15 days to respond and Petitioner shall have 10 days to reply. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/27/11. (REW)
January 20, 2011 93 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER, the parties are directed to meet and confer by 2/4/11, to develop a joint proposed plan which contains the information listed in this order; the parties shall file their joint proposed plan by 2/11/11; the Clerk shall amend the Court's docket to show that Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, is substituted for Dora B Schriro (see order for further details). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 1/20/11. (REW)

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: Stanley v. Ryan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Milo McCormick Stanley
Represented By: Paula K Harms
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: Charles L Ryan
Represented By: Julie Ann Done
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?