Clarenson v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections et al
Andrew E. Clarenson |
Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Colorado Attorney General and Colorado Dept. of Parole |
1:2007cv00856 |
April 26, 2007 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Denver Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Boyd N. Boland |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 22 ORDER. Petitioner Andrew E. Clarensons Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/07/2009. (sah, ) |
Filing 20 ORDER. The Order referring this matter to Magistrate Judge 9 is WITHDRAWN in its entirety by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/03/2009. (sah, ) |
Filing 18 (VACATED) ORDER. On or before 04/24/2009, the Clerk of the Las Animas County District Court shall provide to this court the original written record of Las Animas County criminal case no. 01CR79, People v. Andrew E. Clarenson by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 03/25/2009. (sah, ) Modified on 4/9/2009 to VACATE pursuant to the Minute Order dated 04/09/2009(sah, ). |
Filing 1 ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Petitioner to Cure Deficiency. Petitioner has 30 days to file an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on the court's current and proper form. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/24/2007. (llr, ) |
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 Colorado 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.