Hernandez v. Starman et al
| Jesus John Hernandez |
| United States Parole Commission and Joe Starman |
| 1:2012cv00881 |
| April 4, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Denver |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| 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
67
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RECONSIDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART Mr. Hernandez's Motion to Alter Judgment 57 , insofar as the Court has reconsidered its prior ruling in light of Mr. Hernandez's clarification of the issues he is presenting, and DENIES IN PART that motion, insofar as upon reconsideration, the Court finds that Mr. Hernandez's Petition was properly denied. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/4/14.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
56
JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of United States Parole Commission, Joe Starman against Jesus John Hernandez re: 55 Order, by Clerk on 10/23/2013. (klyon, )
|
|
Filing
55
Opinion and ORDER Denying Petition. The Court finds no error in the Parole Commission's (re-)imposition of a 10-year period of special parole, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Hernandez's Objections (# 45 ), ADOPTS the Recommendation (# 44 ), and DENIES Mr. Hernandez's Petition (# 1 ). Because this ruling(along with the Court's prior findings in its June 6 Opinion) disposes of Mr. Hernandez's Petition in its entirety, Mr. Hernandez's various remaining motions (# 51 , 53 , 54 ) are DENIED. The Court also denies a Certificate of Appealability. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/15/2013. (klyon, )
|
|
Filing
49
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING: Mr. Hernandez's Objections 43 are OVERRULED, and Mr. Hernandez's Motion for Forthwith Issuance of Writ or Immediate Hearing 48 is DENIED. The parties shall submit the supplemental briefs directed herein, and thereafter, the Court shall address any substantive issues remaining in this matter. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/6/13.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER. Petitioner's 40 Motion for Order in Accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and for Leave to Seek Relief in the Nature of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is denied. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 1/11/13.(mnfsl, ) Modified on 1/11/2013 to correct judicial officer (mnfsl, ).
|
|
Filing
35
MINUTE ORDER granting 32 Applicant's Motion for Complete and Unedited Copies of the Memorandums Dated 10/10/2012. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/27/2012. (klyon, )
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER denying 20 Motion to Reconsider 5/11/2012 Order to Dismiss in Part by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/13/2012. (klyon, )
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to a District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the claim challenging the special parole term imposed as part of Applicant's sentence is DISMISSED without prejudice. ORDERED that Applicant� 39;s remaining claim challenging the Parole Commission's administration of drug testing and counseling requirements will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. ORDERED that Applicant's Motion to Reconsider May 1, 2012 Order 15 is denied as moot, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/11/12.(lygsl, )
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER Overruling 9 Objection, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/1/12. (lygsl, )
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER to File Preliminary Response by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/05/2012. (skssl, )
|
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.
