O'Conner v. No Respondents Named
Michael R. O'Conner |
No Respondents Named |
1:2009cv01969 |
August 20, 2009 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Denver Office |
Denver |
Boyd N. Boland |
None |
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 76 MINUTE ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Applicant's Request for Return of Record to Original Jurisdiction (Adams County District Court) [Docket No. 74 ; Filed May 10, 2013] (the "Request"). Pursuant to this Court's Order 62 , on or about December 13, 2011 the Court received a copy of state court records from Adams County District Court 65 . The Court never maintained custody of any original state court records relating to this matter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request is DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 05/17/13. (alvsl) |
Filing 72 Order Adopting And Affirming The April 17, 2012 Recommendation Of The United States Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the 1. Applicant's Objection 71 to the Magistrate Judge's April 17, 2012 Recommendation is OVERRULED and the Recom mendation 67 is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. The Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 24 is DENIED; 3. Applicant's Claim 2(b) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 4.Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any a ppeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is DENIED for purpose of appeal. If Applicant files a notice of appeal, he is ordered to pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24; and 5. No certificate of appealability shall issue because Applicant has not made a substantial showing of a deprivation of a constitutional right, by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/29/2012. (wjmcd, ) |
Filing 60 ORDER REJECTING as moot 57 Report and Recommendations. Applicants Objection is SUSTAINED. The parties are ORDERED to file a Status Report for the Magistrate Judges consideration not later than 12/9/2011. by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/28/2011.(ervsl, ) |
Filing 51 SECOND ORDER for State Court Record re: 45 Order for State Court Record, IT IS ORDERED: Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order the Respondents shall file with the Clerk of the Court, in electronic format if available, a copy of the com plete record of Applicants state court proceedings in People v. Michael Rogileo OConner, Adams County Court Case No. 01CR2949, including all documents in the state court file and transcripts of all proceedings conducted in the state court. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/29/2011. (erv, ) |
Filing 48 ORDER. Joint Status Report due by 2/23/2011, by Judge William J. Martinez on 2/14/11. (mnf, ) |
Filing 45 ORDER TO FORWARD ALL RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTS: The Clerk of the Court for the District Court of Adams County, Colorado shall forward the flat file and hearing transcripts for all proceedings in the trial court and the appellate court in People v. O'Connor, Michael Rogileo, Case No. 01CR2949, to the Clerk for the U.S. District Court on or before 11/15/10. Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order by fax and by regular mail, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/19/10. (ebs, ) |
Filing 34 ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to a District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Renewed request for stay and abeyance in the "Applicant's Combined Response to Order to Show Cause/Motion to Amend/Alter Order of March 1, 2010" 33 is denied. Exhausted claim 2(b) and the amended application are drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. Unexhausted claims 1 and 2(a) are dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer for Senior Judge Zita Leeson Weinshienk on 3/15/10. (gms, ) Modified on 3/16/2010 to add text to indicate order was signed on behalf of Judge Weinshienk (gms, ). |
Filing 25 ORDER to File Second Pre-Answer Response. Ordered that within 21 days Respondents shall file a Pre-Answer Response. Ordered that within 21 days of the filing of the Pre-Answer Response Applicant may file a Reply by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/30/09. (jjh, ) Modified on 12/30/2009 to correct spelling error (jjh, ). |
Filing 22 ORDER Directing Applicant to file Amended Applicant within 30 days by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/03/09. (jjh, ) |
Filing 3 ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file a complaint and 1915 motion on the proper court forms, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/18/09. (jak, ) |
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
Search for this case: O'Conner v. No Respondents Named | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Michael R. O'Conner | |
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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Respondent: No Respondents Named | |
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 | [ Unicourt | 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.