Mutab v. Schiro et al
| Kathoum Mutab |
| Dora Schiro and Arizona Attorney General, State of |
| 2:2007cv01415 |
| July 25, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| David G Campbell |
| 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
28
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's 27 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Petitioner's 26 Motion for Extension of Time is denied as moot. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/16/10. (SAT)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER that Magistrate Judge Charles Pyle's 12 Report and Recommendation is accepted, Petitioner Kathoum Mutab's petition for writ of habeas corpus is dimissed. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/24/09. (ESL, )
|
|
Filing
12
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Recommending that the Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. Any party may serve & file written objections within 10 days of being served with a copy of the Report & Recommendation, and are advised that objections filed are to be identified with case number: CV-07-1415-PHX-DGC. Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Report & Recommendation to Petitioner & Respondents' cnsl. ***See attached PDF for complete information.*** Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle on 8/6/09. (BAC, )
|
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.
