Almanza #140967 v. Ryan et al
Fernando Segoviano Almanza |
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
2:2015cv02064 |
October 15, 2015 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
Pinal |
James F Metcalf (PS) |
Douglas L Rayes |
General |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 104 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 86 ) is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Development (Doc. 62 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Doc. 79 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dismissal of the petition is justified because reasonable jurists would not find the rulin g debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) with prejudice and shall terminate this action. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 5/27/2020. (WLP) |
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.