Scott v. Ryan et al
| Bobby Joe Scott |
| Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2014cv01692 |
| July 28, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| James F Metcalf (PS) |
| James A Teilborg |
| 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
30
ORDER - The 21 R&R is accepted and adopted as stated in the order; the 29 objections are overruled; the claims in the Petition are dismissed or denied as specified in the R&R (Doc. 21 at 59-60) and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. In the event Petitioner files an appeal, a certificate of appealability is denied because, to the extent the Petition was dismissed, such dismissal was based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court� 39;s procedural rulings debatable or wrong and, to the extent the Petition was denied on the merits, Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right. The R&R's recommendation that Petitioner be sent forms to seek a second or successive petition with the Court of Appeals is rejected because all claims this Court found to be successive are also barred by the statute of limitations, thus any successive petition would be futile. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/30/2016. (ATD)
|
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.
