Hammersley v. McCafh et al
| Robert Hammersley |
| Micki McCafh, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and San Luis Municipal Court |
| 2:2014cv00045 |
| January 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Steven P Logan (PS) |
| David G Campbell |
| 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
26
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Magistrate Judge John Boyle's R&R (Doc. 24 ) is accepted. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma paupe ris on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 08/07/2015. (REK)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER that Respondent San Luis Municipal Court is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting 2 Petitioner's APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Clerk 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 the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/9/14. (LSP)
|
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.
