McIntosh v. Richardson et al
| Sheldon McIntosh |
| Shelton Richardson and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2011cv00702 |
| April 8, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| David G Campbell |
| Mark E Aspey |
| 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
26
ORDER it appears that all of the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6) have been satisfied. Petitioner did not receive notice of the Court's entry of judgment or the accompanying order within 21 days after entry, he filed his notice of appeal (deemed t o be a motion for extension of time) within 14 days of receiving the documents, and it appears no party will be prejudiced by the delay occasioned by these events. As a result, the Court grants Petitioner motion for extension of time to file his appe al. His notice of appeal (Doc. 21 ) is deemed to be timely filed. Petitioner need not file an additional notice of appeal. A copy of this Order shall be served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and shall reference case No. 12-15086. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/5/2012. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey's R&R Doc. 14 is accepted. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus Doc. 1 is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/14/2011. (KMG)
|
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.
