Alex Marquez v. Tim Garrett, et al
| ALEX MARQUEZ |
| TIM GARRETT and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA |
| 22-15422 |
| March 22, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ALEX MARQUEZ V. TIM GARRETT, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Streamlined request [3] by Appellant Alex Marquez to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Alex Marquez opening brief due 06/23/2022. Appellees Attorney General for the State of Nevada and Tim Garrett answering brief due 07/25/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12446616] (BG) [Entered: 05/13/2022 02:21 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Alex Marquez. New requested due date is 06/22/2022. [12445891] [22-15422] (Dows, Angela) [Entered: 05/12/2022 05:06 PM] |
| Filing 2 Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Ms. Angela H. Dows, Esquire for Alex Marquez) [12412045] (TG) [Entered: 04/04/2022 02:14 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Alex Marquez opening brief due 05/24/2022. Appellees Attorney General for the State of Nevada and Tim Garrett answering brief due 06/24/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12402115] (RT) [Entered: 03/22/2022 03:59 PM] |
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.
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.
