Mitchell v. Schriro et al

Petitioner: David Mitchell
Respondent: Dora Schriro and Arizona Attorney General, State of
Case Number: 2:2008cv01463
Filed: August 7, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: David K Duncan (PS)
Presiding Judge: Paul G Rosenblatt
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 6, 2010 48 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the petitioner's Request for Production of Documents and for Service Upon Respondents (Doc. 47) is denied. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/6/10.(KMG)
August 30, 2010 45 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein (Doc. 29) and the petitioner's Motion for Expedient Disposition in "Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein&qu ot; (Doc. 30) are both denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that n o certificate of appealability shall issue because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/29/10. (KMG)
May 26, 2010 36 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 34 Ex Parte Motion for Production of Documents to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall mail complete copies of documents nos. 1, 12, 14, 23 and 24 to the petitioner. FURTHER ORDERED denying as premature 35 Motion for Recon sideration FURTHER ORDERED granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time, to the extent that the petitioner shall file hisobjections to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation 33 nolater than 6/30/10. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/25/10.(MAP)

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: Mitchell v. Schriro et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: David Mitchell
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: Dora 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?