Vasquez-Mendoza v. Ryan et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 11, 2015
ORDER ADOPTING 39 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner Agustine Vasquez-Mendoza's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. The Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/11/15. (LSP)
|September 30, 2013
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies (Doc. 12 ), the petitioner 9;s Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 16 ), and the petitioner's Request for Status on Report and Recommendation on Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 27 ) are all denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25 ) is rejected without prejudice and that this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Metcalf for further proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/30/13. (LAD)
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
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?