Farrall v. Schriro, et al
Case Number: 2:2004cv00260
Filed: February 4, 2004
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge: Earl H Carroll
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 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
December 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 112 CORRECTED ORDER re 111 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; denying without prejudice to refiling in the Ninth Circuit 110 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 12/7/10. (LSP)
December 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 111 ORDER denying without prejudice 110 Petitioner's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 12/7/10.(LSP)
October 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 106 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's 103 Objections are overruled; the 102 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate judge is adopted in full as the Order of the Court; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed; a Certificate fo Appealability is denied as Petiitoner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 10/25/10. (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: Farrall v. Schriro, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?