Gilardi v. Ryan et al
Andrew Paul Gilardi |
Charles Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona |
4:2017cv00609 |
December 18, 2017 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Tucson Division Office |
Mohave |
Rosemary Marquez |
Bernardo P Velasco |
General |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 17 ORDER that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further Ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. It is further Ordered that the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's ruling debatable. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 12/17/2018. (MFR) |
Filing 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254). The Magistrate Judge Recommends that the District Court enter an Order: FINDING that Petitioner's § 2254 Petition is untimely as to the claims challenging his original sentence. FINDING that Petitioner's § 2254 Petition challenging his probation revocation are non-meritorious. DENYING Petitioner'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). Filed objections should use the following case number: No. CV-17-00609-RM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernardo P Velasco on 8/29/2018. (See attached PDF for details) (KEP) |
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.