Martin v. Rider et al

Case Number: 2:2006cv01513
Filed: June 13, 2006
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge: Paul G Rosenblatt
Referring Judge: Bernardo P Velasco
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
March 24, 2009 40 Opinion or Order of the Court Certificate of Appealability Denied. Probable cause does not exist for the appeal. Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; in forma pauperis status denied as to this appeal re 36 Notice of Appeal. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's 39 MOTION (REQUEST) for Order re: Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 3/24/2009. (See document for full details). (LAD)
January 21, 2009 34 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 . That the petitioner's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation 32 are all overruled. That the petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/20/09. (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: Martin v. Rider et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?