High-Elk v. Ryan et al
| Rodrick Wade High-Elk |
| Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
| 4:2011cv00364 |
| June 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pinal |
| Glenda E Edmonds (PS) |
| Frank R Zapata |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 . It is ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED; It is FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Discovery (Doc. 12 ), Motion for Leave t o File Amended Reply to Petition and for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 15 ), and Motion to Request Title V Disclosure and Discovery (Doc. 16 ) are DENIED as moot. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/9/12. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)
|
|
Filing
17
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1). The motion to conduct discovery (Doc. 12) and motion for disclosure (Doc. 16) should be denied as moot. The motion to file a supplement to his reply brief should be granted in the interest of completeness (Doc. 15). Signed by Magistrate Judge Glenda E Edmonds on 1/31/12. (See atached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)
|
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.
