Sandoval v. Shinn, et al
Petitioner: Ned Alan Sandoval
Respondent: David Shinn and Arizona Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2022cv08037
Filed: March 7, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Camille D Bibles (PS)
Referring Judge: Camille D Bibles
2 Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 28, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen Elizabeth Moody on behalf of David Shinn. (Moody, Karen)
April 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 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. Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/27/22. (Attachments: #1 Petition) (SMH)
April 15, 2022 Filing 6 Filing fee: $5.00, receipt number PHX236898. PAID IN FULL. (BAS)
March 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER Petitioner's #2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee. If Petitioner fails to pay the $5.00 filing fee, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/16/2022. (ESG)
March 7, 2022 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (SMH)
March 7, 2022 Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Ned Alan Sandoval. (SMH) (2 pages)
March 7, 2022 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Ned Alan Sandoval. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (SMH) (15 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: Sandoval 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: Ned Alan Sandoval
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
Represented By: Karen Elizabeth Moody
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: Arizona Attorney General
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?