Carpenter #259939 v. Ryan et al
| Edward Lamar Carpenter |
| Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 2:2016cv00471 |
| February 22, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| James F Metcalf |
| Neil V Wake |
| 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
23
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 21 is accepted; a request for a Certificate of Appealability is denied because Petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable w hether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling; the following portions of Petitioner's Amended P etition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 10 are denied: (1) the portion of Ground 1(a)(1) based upon counsel's failure to call witnesses; (2) the portion of Ground 1(a)(2) based upon counsel's failure to call a banking expert; and (3) Ground 1(a )(3) (ineffectiveness re documents); the remainder of Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 10 is dismissed with prejudice; the Clerk shall enter judgment denying and dismissing Petitioner's Amended Petition 10 with prejudice; the Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 11/29/16. (REW)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
