Alcantar #163442 v. Shinn et al
Petitioner: Adam Alcantar
Respondent: David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number: 2:2021cv01804
Filed: October 27, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Michelle H Burns (PS)
Referring Judge: Roslyn O Silver
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 December 23, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 23, 2021 Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Permission to File Petition/Motion in the District Court, for Cause (as to Second or Successive Petition) by Adam Alcantar. (LAD) (2 pages)
November 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER - Petitioner's "Motion to Clarify and/or; Motion to Amend Petition... Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)" (Doc. #6 ) is denied. This action must remain closed. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 11/30/21. (NKS)
November 23, 2021 Filing 6 MOTION to Clarify, and/or MOTION to Amend Petition by Adam Alcantar. (SST) (7 pages)
November 2, 2021 Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's order filed November 2, 2021, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (SST)
November 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER: 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. 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. 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 Order for full details.) Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/2/21. (SST)
October 27, 2021 Filing 3 NOTICE: This case is subject to electronic filing. Please review the attached documents. (SST)
October 27, 2021 Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (SST)
October 27, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Adam Alcantar. (SST) (117 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: Alcantar #163442 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 ]
Petitioner: Adam Alcantar
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: 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 ]

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?