Berger v. Ryan, et al
| 2:2009cv02689 |
| December 28, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Michelle H Burns (PS) |
| David G Campbell |
| 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
30
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 26 . Morton Berger's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied because Berger has made no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/2/11. (DMT)
|
|
Filing
26
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254), Recommending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) be Denied and dismissed with prejudice. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not made asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 7/11/11. (DMT)
|
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: Berger 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.
