Ruderman v. Ryan et al
| David Robert Ruderman |
| Charles Ryan and Arizona Attorney General |
| 2:2009cv00887 |
| April 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| Michelle H Burns |
| G Murray Snow |
| None |
| 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
25
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 as set forth in this order. Petitioner David Robert Ruderman's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus isDENIED with prejudice. See (Doc. 1). A certificate of appealability is GRANTED with respect to P etitioner's claim of juror bias and his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorneys alleged failure to challenge biased jurors. A certificate of appealability is DENIED with respect to Petitioner's remaining claims be cause he has not made a substantial showing that the state courts' decision on these claims resulted in the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/13/10. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
20
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Recommending that that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (See document for full details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 4/30/10. (LAD)
|
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.
