Todorich v. Shinn et al
| John Frank Todorich |
| David Shinn and Mark Brnovich |
| 2:2020cv01336 |
| July 7, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Michelle H Burns (PS) |
| Michelle H Burns |
| Michael T Liburdi |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 RESPONSE to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) and exhibits A-L by Mark Brnovich, David Shinn. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits A-L)(Chiasson, Laura) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Patrice Chiasson on behalf of Mark Brnovich, David Shinn. (Chiasson, Laura) |
| Filing 7 Notice of Receipt of Electronic Service of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Arizona Attorney General on 07/30/20. 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. (Nielsen, Jim) |
Filing 6
Arizona Attorney General Service Order (2254) - The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #1 ) 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. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns 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 details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 7/30/20. (Attachments: #1 Petition, #2 Exhibit)(EJA)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE re: Filing Civil Cover Sheet by John Frank Todorich . (Higgins, Thomas) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by John Frank Todorich. Pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual Section II(B), attorneys are required to submit the automated Civil Cover Sheet when filing a new case. FOLLOW-UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please file the automated Civil Cover Sheet. Deficiency must be corrected within one business day of this notice. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DLC) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by John Frank Todorich. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c) - Documents shall be converted to PDF directly from a word processing program and per Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual must be text searchable. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DLC) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (DLC) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254). Filing fee received: $ 5.00, receipt number 0970-18449304 filed by John Frank Todorich. (Higgins, Thomas) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(DLC) |
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.
