Welch v. Bock et al

Petitioner: Jeff Michael Welch
Respondent: Bock, Doris Schriro and Arizona Attorney General, State of
Case Number: 2:2007cv02169
Filed: November 7, 2007
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: Charles R Pyle (PS)
Presiding Judge: Neil V Wake
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
September 24, 2010 31 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER and Denial of Certificate of Appealability: ADOPTING 29 Report and Recommendations. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. That the Clerk enter judgment denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). The Cl erk shall terminate this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Probable cause does not exist for the appeal. The applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/24/10. (DMT)
December 14, 2009 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the Report and Recommendation 10 of the Magistrate Judge is accepted as to Petitioner's Ground I. FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10) is rejected as to Ground II, without prejudice to filing the same or a different Report and Recommendation after the briefing required by this order. FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Ground II is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a further Report and Recommendation. The Ma gistrate Judge is requested to file a further the Report and Recommendation concerning Ground II by April 30, 2010, if possible, as this Court must conclude all proceedings and enter final judgment in this case by November 7, 2010, to comply with the Civil Justice Reform Act. FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents file by January 29, 2010, a brief addressing the questions posed in this order. Petitioner may file a reply by February 26, 2010. These deadlines are subject to amendment by order of the Magistrate Judge. No judgment shall be entered at this time, and this order is not final or appealable. Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle added. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 12/14/09. (KMG)

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: Welch v. Bock et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jeff Michael Welch
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Bock
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Doris Schriro
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Arizona Attorney General, State of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
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?