Dewey v. USA
Petitioner: Derek Michael Dewey
Respondent: USA
Case Number: 3:2016cv08293
Filed: December 9, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Prescott Division Office
County: Apache
Presiding Judge: David K Duncan (PS)
Presiding Judge: Paul G Rosenblatt
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 15 ) is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4 ) is GRANTED. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/30/18. (LAD)
August 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER - The Court will permit Petitioner to file an amended Motion in order to add the claim described in his 5 Motion to Amend. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner Derek Michael Dewey shall file an amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to add the claim described in his Motion to Amend. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 8/29/17. (LAD)
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

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?