Olmos v. Ryan et al
| Timothy Paul Olmos |
| Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan |
| 2:2011cv00344 |
| February 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| Mark E Aspey (PS) |
| 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
93
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)
|
|
Filing
78
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)
|
|
Filing
13
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)
|
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.
