Qualls v. Ryan et al
| William Kenneth Qualls |
| Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2013cv01288 |
| June 27, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| David K Duncan (PS) |
| James A Teilborg |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
160
ORDER granting 157 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and denying 159 Motion for Relief from Judgment. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED a certificate of appealability as to the September 7, 2017 motion for relief from judgment is denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/18/17.(LSP)
|
|
Filing
152
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED. Probable cause does not exist for the appeal. Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; in forma pauperis status denied as to this appeal re: 151 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/13/16. (LSP)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER that Petitioner's motion to exceed pages (Doc. 148 ) is granted to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall deem filed the Motion currently lodged at Doc. 149 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 149 ) is denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/31/16.(KGM)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER ADOPTING 133 Report and Recommendation, the objections (Doc. 140 ) are overruled; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED and the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal, with prejudice. Petitioner's Application f or Certificate of Appealability from the District Court and Statement of Reasons in Support (Doc. 138 ) is DENIED; in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Courts procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/8/15. (LSP)
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER denying 130 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 134 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 135 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall file the objections lodged at (Doc. 136 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 137 Motion for exemption from compliance with court rules and extension of page limit. Respondents may file a response to the objections within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/21/15.(LSP)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER that Plaintiff's "Objection to Magistrate Duncan's Order (10/27/14) and Motion for Reconsideration Complaint Request for Investigation," (Doc. 123 ) is overruled and denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/17/14. (LSP)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER granting 1 Motion to file an oversized brief. Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus (originally attached to Doc. 1 ) and this case are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this ca se. 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). (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/23/13. (LAD)
|
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.
