Marshall v. Ryan et al
| Charles Marshall |
| Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan |
| 2:2013cv01361 |
| July 5, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| James F Metcalf (PS) |
| David G Campbell |
| 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
14
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The 13 Report and Recommendation is accepted; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice; a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; the Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/24/14. (REW)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER that the 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the 1 Petition and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respon dents must answer 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 James F. Metcalf for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/11/2013. (LFIG)
|
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.
