Moss #43775 v. Shinn et al
Petitioner: Edward Paul Moss
Respondent: David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number: 2:2020cv01165
Filed: June 11, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Michelle H Burns (PS)
Referring Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 1, 2020 Filing 6 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed July 1, 2020, Petitioner to take nothing and this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 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 Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (WLP)
July 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. (2) The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with a copy of the form recommended by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255. (3) 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 Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 7/1/2020. (Attachments: #1 Instructions and Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition) (WLP)
June 12, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE: This case is subject to electronic filing. Please review the attached documents. (SST)
June 11, 2020 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (SST)
June 11, 2020 Filing 2 BRIEF in Support of the Claims of Actual and Factual Innocence, Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the Claim of a Malicious Prosecution by Petitioner Edward Paul Moss. (SST) (31 pages)
June 11, 2020 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Edward Paul Moss. (SST) (17 pages)

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: Moss #43775 v. Shinn et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: David Shinn
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Edward Paul Moss
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?