Muhammad v. Schriro et al
2:2006cv01036 |
April 12, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
Lawrence O Anderson |
Stephen M McNamee |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 130 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 124 : IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be GRANTED because Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/7/11. (LAD) |
Filing 124 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, doc.1, be DENIED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be GRANTED because Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/7/11. (LAD) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Muhammad 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.