Bluntschly v. Schriro et al
| Robert Bluntschly |
| Dora Schriro and Arizona Attorney General, State of |
| 2:2007cv00627 |
| March 28, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Stephen M McNamee |
| Charles R Pyle (PS) |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER that the Court adopts the 19 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. That Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 12/22/08. (ESL, )
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER granting Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Clerk must serve a copy of the Petition and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer the Pe tition within 40 days of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Judge Charles R Pyle added. Judge Charles R Pyle (PS) no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 04/09/07. (DNH, )
|
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
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.
