Richard Lancaster v. Robert LeGrand, et al
Petitioner / Appellant: RICHARD ALLEN LANCASTER
Respondent / Appellee: ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
Case Number: 15-16636
Filed: August 18, 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 29, 2015. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 29, 2015 Filing 8 Attorney Daniel M. Roche in 15-16636 substituted by Attorney Amanda C. Kunzi in 15-16636 [9809426] (RR) [Entered: 12/29/2015 07:31 PM]
December 29, 2015 Filing 7 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Amanda C. Kunzi for Appellees Robert LeGrand and Nevada Attorney General. Date of service: 12/29/2015. [9808550] [15-16636] (Sage, Amanda) [Entered: 12/29/2015 01:11 PM]
October 30, 2015 Filing 6 Filed order (RONALD M. GOULD and MARY H. MURGUIA) The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [9739549] (WL) [Entered: 10/30/2015 01:30 PM]
September 23, 2015 Filing 5 Filed Appellant Richard Allen Lancaster AMENDED reply to Appellees opposition to application for COA, in 15-16636 served on 09/18/2015 [9695742] (RR) [Entered: 09/24/2015 07:43 PM]
September 22, 2015 Filing 4 Filed Appellant Richard Allen Lancaster reply to Appellees oposition to application for COA, in 15-16636 served on 09/17/2015 [9695741] (RR) [Entered: 09/24/2015 07:39 PM]
September 14, 2015 Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellees Robert LeGrand and Nevada Attorney General response opposing motion (for certificate of appealability). Date of service: 09/14/2015. [9681024] [15-16636] (Roche, Daniel) [Entered: 09/14/2015 10:11 AM]
August 20, 2015 Filing 2 Filed Appellant Richard Allen Lancaster application for certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: None. Served on 08/10/2015. [9658707] (RR) [Entered: 08/24/2015 07:55 PM]
August 18, 2015 Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 08/07/2015. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Electronic: PACER) [9650448] (RT) [Entered: 08/18/2015 09:26 AM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Richard Lancaster v. Robert LeGrand, 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 / appellant: RICHARD ALLEN LANCASTER
Represented By: Richard Allen Lancaster
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent / appellee: ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden
Represented By: Amanda C. Sage Esquire
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent / appellee: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
Represented By: Amanda C. Sage Esquire
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 [ 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?