Olmos v. Ryan et al

Petitioner: Timothy Paul Olmos
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan
Case Number: 2:2011cv00344
Filed: February 22, 2011
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: Mark E Aspey (PS)
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 10, 2014 93 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade's R&R (Doc. 87 ) is accepted; that Claim Thirteen of Petitioner's Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed for lack of juris diction; that Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 88 ) is denied; that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/10/2014. (ALS)
June 24, 2013 78 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Olmos's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed in part and deferred in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade's R&R (Doc. 67 ) is accepted in part and modified in part as described he rein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Bade for consideration of Claim Thirteen as described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether a certificate of appealability should be issued will be addressed upon evaluation of Magistrate Judge Bade's second R&R that disposes of Olmos's remaining claim. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/24/2013. (KMG)
August 10, 2011 13 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion for Reconsideration Of Denial Of Petitioner's Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings, which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Granted in part to the extent that the Court's Order (Doc. 5) is vacated in so far as it denied Petitioner's Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings(Doc. 3), dismissed the Petition (Doc. 1) and this ac tion without prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability in the event Petitioner filed an appeal. The Judgment entered on April 20, 2011 (Doc. 6 ) is also vacated. Petitioner's "Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner& #039;s Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings" (Doc. 7) is denied in part as to all other relief requested. Petitioner's Motion To Rule On Filed Pleadings And To Correct Court Record 11 is granted in part to the extent that this Order rules on Petitioner's Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner's Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings, and denied in part as to all other relief requested. The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), "Motion To Stay And A bey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings" (Doc. 3), and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must file a response to the "Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Pro ceedings" (Doc. 3) within 40 days of the date of service. This matter, including the Petition (Doc. 1) and the Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings (Doc. 3), is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/10/11. (see order for full details)(DMT)

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: Olmos v. Ryan et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Arizona
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: Charles L Ryan
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 ]
Petitioner: Timothy Paul Olmos
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?