Kleinschmidt v. Ryan et al
| Kelly Scot Kleinschmidt |
| Charles Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2010cv00524 |
| March 8, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| G Murray Snow |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
12
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 . Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing S ection 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability becausereasonable jurists would not find the Courts procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/21/10. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Kelly Scot Kleinschmidt; Recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Tha t a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss on 11/23/10. (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
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.
