Felix v. Ryan et al
| Francisco Javier Felix |
| Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Charles L Ryan |
| 2:2019cv01885 |
| March 21, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Camille D Bibles (PS) |
| Camille D Bibles |
| Steven P Logan |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE to #9 Response to Amended Habeas Petition (State/2254) by Petitioner Francisco Javier Felix. (LAD) (19 pages, entitled Response to Respondents Limited Answer) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE to #5 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) by Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-25)(Todd, John) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by John Pressley Todd on behalf of Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Charles L Ryan. (Todd, John) |
| Filing 7 Notice of Receipt of Electronic Service of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Arizona Attorney General on 05/24/19. The Attorney General's Office will file a Notice of Appearance within five (5) business days that identifies the respondents that are represented or, in the alternative, will notify the Court if the Attorney General is not able to accept service for and/or represent any of the named respondents. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Sparks, Jeffrey) |
Filing 6
Arizona Attorney General Service Order (2254) - The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Amended Petition (Doc. #5 ) and this Order on the Respondent(s) and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by electronic mail pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States District Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona and the Arizona Attorney General's Office. Respondents must answer the Amended Petition within 40 days of the date of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 5/24/19. (Attachments: #1 Amended Petition)(LAD)
|
| Filing 5 AMENDED PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Francisco Javier Felix. (239 pages)(RMV) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER - Petitioner's #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. Petitioner has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file an amended petition. The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice of this action, without further notice to Petitioner, if Petitioner fails to submit an amended petition on the court-approved form within 30 days from the filing date of this Order and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/18/19. (MSA) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/19/2019: #1 2254 Petition and Instructions) (MSA).
|
| Filing 3 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number PHX206635. (RMV) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (REK) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Francisco Javier Felix. (244 pages) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(REK) |
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.
