Schultz v. Ryan et al
| 2:2009cv02537 |
| December 4, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Susan R Bolton |
| Jay R Irwin (PS) |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ground One, the Sixth Amendment claim, of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ground Two, the Fourteenth Amendment claim, of the Petit ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and juris ts of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/15/11. (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
| Search for this case: Schultz v. Ryan et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
