Rimer #189871 v. Ryan et al
||Ignacio Esteban Rimer
||Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
||March 4, 2014
||US District Court for the District of Arizona
||Tucson Division Office
||Bruce G Macdonald (PS)
||Raner C Collins
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 2254
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 17, 2017
ORDER ACCEPTING & ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Petitioner Ignacio Esteban Rimer's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) is denied. Doc. 1 . Plaintiff' ;s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 5/17/2017. (SIB)
|February 3, 2017
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) filed by Ignacio Esteban Rimer. Any party may serve and file written objections within 1 4 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to another partys objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-14-01930-TUC-RCC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 2/3/2017. (BAR) Modified on 2/3/2017 to add WO (BAR).
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?