Parks v. Arizona, State of et al
Petitioner:
Edward Faye Parks
Respondent:
Arizona, State of, Tom Sheahan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number:
3:2012cv08040
Filed:
March 5, 2012
Court:
Arizona District Court
Office:
Prescott Division Office
County:
Mohave
Referring Judge:
David K Duncan (PS)
Presiding Judge:
G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit:
General
Cause of Action:
28:2254
Jury Demanded By:
None
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| April 3, 2012 | 6 |
ORDER, Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus 1 and this case are dismissed without prejudice; Petitioner's Motion in Request, for Spe[ci]al Action Rule-7 4 is denied as moot; the Clerk must enter judgment accordingly and close this case; 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. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/3/12.(REW)
|
| March 8, 2012 | 3 |
ORDER, within 30 days, Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; if Petitioner fails to comply with this order, the Clerk must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Petitioner. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/8/12. (REW)
|
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.
