Clark v. Schriro et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv02724
Filed: November 15, 2006
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge: Earl H Carroll
Presiding Judge: Hector C Estrada
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
June 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's 29 OBJECTION to Magistrate's 28 Report and Recommendation is overruled. FURTHER ORDERED that the 28 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted in full. FURTHER ORDERED that the 18 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed. Signed by Judge Earl H Carroll on 6/19/09. (SAT)
March 31, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 18 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Recommending that the District Court deny and dismiss the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Hector C Estrada on 3/31/09. Any party may serve and file written objections within 10 days after being served with a copy of the Report & Recommendation. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 06-2724-PHX-EHC.(BAR, )
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: Clark 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?