White v. Ryan et al
| Boy White |
| Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan |
| 2:2011cv02126 |
| August 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pima |
| Mark E Aspey |
| 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
28
ORDER ACCEPTING 22 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall TERMINATE this action. 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. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/27/12. (LSP)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER granting Petitioner's request for additional time to file a response to the R&R, to and including, 3/19/12 re: 25 ; denying 21 Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/5/12.(TLJ)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER the Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition 1 and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/1/11. (TLJ)
|
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.
