Gray #282846 v. Ryan et al
Petitioner:
Richard Louis Gray
Respondent:
Charles Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number:
2:2017cv00963
Filed:
March 31, 2017
Court:
Arizona District Court
Office:
Phoenix Division Office
County:
Pinal
Referring Judge:
Eileen S Willett (PS)
Presiding Judge:
G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit:
General
Cause of Action:
28:2254
Jury Demanded By:
None
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| June 27, 2018 | 48 |
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Magistrate Judge's 46 Report and Recommendation is adopted and the 39 Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Richard Louis Gray is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/27/18. (MSA)
|
| September 15, 2017 | 29 |
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Magistrate Judge Willett's R&R (Doc. 22 ) is accepted. The Petitioner's Motion for Release from Custody (Doc. 14 ) is denied. The Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 21 ) is denied. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Courts procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/15/17. (SLQ)
|
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 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.
