De Los Rios # 220280 v. Ryan et al

Petitioner: Paul Bryan De Los Rios
Respondent: Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number: 2:2012cv00839
Filed: April 23, 2012
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: David K Duncan
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
September 23, 2013 29 Opinion or Order of the Court * ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul Bryan De Los Rios's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealabili ty and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because De Los Rios has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED De Los Rios's Motions to Produce Documents (Docs. 24 - 25 ) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/23/13. (LAD) * Modified to correct typo on 9/23/2013 (LAD).
May 20, 2013 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 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 5/20/13. (LAD)
May 16, 2012 4 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Ground Three of the Petition is dismissed. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer Grounds One and Two of the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/16/12. (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: De Los Rios # 220280 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 ]
Petitioner: Paul Bryan De Los Rios
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
Represented By: William Scott Simon
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: Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Represented By: William Scott Simon
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?