Nunn v. Brill et al
Rayfeal R. Nunn |
Hoyt Brill and Colorado Attorney General |
1:2009cv00068 |
January 15, 2009 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
Kit Carson |
Boyd N. Boland |
None |
Federal Question |
28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 51 ORDER Denying Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal after Review re 46 Notice of Appeal by Rayfeal R. Nunn, by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 02/28/11. (bjrsl, ) |
Filing 44 ORDER denying 37 Applicants Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify; denying 41 Applicants Motion to Compel; denying 42 Applicants Motion for Order; Applicant Rayfeal R. Nunns pro se amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed February 24, 2009 7 is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 2/4/2011.(ervsl, ) |
Filing 25 ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to a District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Exhausted claims 5 and 6 and the application are drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. Unexhausted claims 1 through 4 are dismissed voluntarily by applicant, by Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 8/5/09. (gms, ) |
Filing 17 ORDER to Supplement Pre-Answer Response by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 06/10/09. (jjh, ) |
Filing 4 ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/22/09. (jjh, ) |
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.