Colvin v. Medina et al
| Travis Bernard Colvin |
| Angel Medina and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The |
| 1:2010cv00896 |
| April 22, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Lincoln |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER UPON RECONSIDERATION, DENYING ADDITIONAL RELIEF: For the foregoing reasons, the Court has reconsidered its prior ruling in light of the complete record of the 1995 evidentiary hearing. Despite that reconsideration, the Court finds no basis to alter or amend its November 22, 2010 Opinion and Order. Mr. Colvin's Supplemental Motion to Alter Judgment 34 is DENIED. Mr. Colvin's Motion Requesting Order for Completion of Record 36 and Motion to Take Judicial Notice 29 are DENIED AS MOOT. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/9/12.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT: Respondents shall obtain and produce the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held on Mr. Colvin's Rule 35 motion and shall file that transcript, serving a copy on Mr. Colvin, withi n 60 days of the date of this Order. Mr. Colvin will have 45 days to file a Supplemental Motion to Alter Judgment, and the Respondents shall have 30 days to file a response. The Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis 24 is DENIED AS PREMATURE, insofar as the Court has agreed to reconsider a portion of the Order that Mr. Colvin seeks leave to appeal. Mr. Colvin's Motion to Alter Judgment 25 is GRANTED IN PART, as set forth in the Order. Mr. Colvin's Mo tion to Expand the Record 26 is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks to have the transcript of the relevant evidentiary hearing filed in this action. Mr. Colvin's "Motion for Status of Motions" 27 and Motion to Take Judicial Notice 28 , both of which seek to bring the other motions at issue here to the Court's attention are DENIED AS MOOT. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/29/11.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. The Court has sua sponte considered whether any of Mr. Colvin's contentions warrant the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Having c onsidered the standards of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), the Court finds that Mr. Colvin has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right such that reasonable jurists could disagree as to the disposition of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court also denies a Certificate of Appealability, by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/22/2010. (wjc, )
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw in Part. Claim 2(a) is dismissed procedurally defaulted. Claims 1(a), 1 (b), 2(b) and 3 shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. By Judge Christine M. Arguello for Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 07/26/2010. (sah, )
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER to File 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 04/27/10. (jjh, )
|
|
Filing
1
ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Applicant to Cure Deficiency. Applicant shall have 30 days to file a 1915 motion on the proper court form, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/20/10. (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
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.
