Cassise #285716 v. Ryan et al

Petitioner: Louis Joseph Cassise
Respondent: Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number: 2:2015cv01281
Filed: July 9, 2015
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pinal
Referring Judge: Eileen S Willett (PS)
Presiding Judge: Paul G Rosenblatt
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
November 8, 2016 50 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 46 and 49 petitioner's Motions to Reconsider Dismissal of Habeas Petition; denying 47 petitioner's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and denying 48 Motion for Production of Records and Docket. No certificate o f appealability shall issue because the petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable either that the Court abused its discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration or that the underlying § 2254 petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/7/16.(LSP)
June 28, 2016 29 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 19 in its entirety - IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondents' Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition for Containing Only Unexhausted Claims (Doc. 19 ) is granted and that the petitioner� 39;s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that leave t o appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the dismissal of the petitioner's habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. (See document for full details). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/28/16. (LAD)
January 26, 2016 17 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting the Motion for Clarification. (Doc. 14 ). FURTHER ORDERED denying the request to stay the proceedings. FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion for Summary Disposition. (Doc. 16 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents must answer the Pet ition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) by February 26, 2016. To the extent that Respondents may request leave to file a dispositive motion in place of an answer, the request is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 1/26/2016.(KMG)

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

Search for this case: Cassise #285716 v. Ryan et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Louis Joseph Cassise
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Charles L Ryan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?