Wade v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona et al
Nathaniel Wade |
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, Maricopa, County of and David Shinn |
2:2021cv01599 |
September 17, 2021 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
James F Metcalf (PS) |
Susan R Bolton |
James F Metcalf |
Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. § 2254 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Londono Holder on behalf of Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, David Shinn. (Holder, Jennifer) |
Filing 4 Notice of Receipt of Electronic Service of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Arizona Attorney General on 10/12/21. 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 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (DXD) |
Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254). Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number PHX231835 filed by Nathaniel Wade (45 pages). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-E, #2 Envelope)(DXD) |
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.