Dickinson v. Shinn et al
Petitioner: Wade Cole Dickinson
Respondent: David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Case Number: 3:2022cv08125
Filed: July 11, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Deborah M Fine (PS)
Referring Judge: Deborah M Fine
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 May 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 29, 2022 Filing 6 Limited RESPONSE to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) by Attorney General of the State of Arizona, David Shinn. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-F, #2 Exhibit G-J, #3 Exhibit K-Z)(Ambri, Mariette)
July 28, 2022 Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Mariette Susan Spence Ambri on behalf of Attorney General of the State of Arizona, David Shinn. (Ambri, Mariette)
July 28, 2022 Filing 4 Notice of Receipt of Electronic Service of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Arizona Attorney General on 07/27/22. 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)
July 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Arizona Attorney General Service Order (2254): The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition #1 and this Order on the Respondent(s) and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by electronic mail. 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 Deborah M. Fine pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/27/2022. (Attachments: #1 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) (REK)
July 11, 2022 Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (REK)
July 11, 2022 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254). Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number 200000221 filed by Wade Cole Dickinson. (23 Pages and Envelope) (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (REK)

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: Dickinson 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: Wade Cole Dickinson
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: Mariette Susan Spence Ambri
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
Represented By: Mariette Susan Spence Ambri
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?