Jones v. Archuleta et al
Petitioner: Bernard Jones
Respondent: Lou Archuleta and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
Case Number: 1:2016cv03048
Filed: December 12, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: Denver
Presiding Judge: Gordon P. Gallagher
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. There is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Motion for Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing 45 , Motion for Appointment of Counsel 44 , and the motion 51 seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with the motion for appointment of counsel are denied, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/26/18. (sgrim)
July 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART AND FOR ANSWER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/5/17. 27 Motion for Expansion of the Record is granted, and 18 Motion for Expansion of the Record is denied. (dkals, )
June 9, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 25 Minute Order. Applicant's Motion for Enlargement of Time 21 is GRANTED and the Court will consider Applicants arguments in the Reply to Pre-Answer Response [ 24] filed June 8, 2017. Applicant's Motion to Cure Deficiencies in Supplement to Reply to Pre-Answer Response 22 and Applicant's Motion to Cure Deficiencies in Motion for Expansion of the Record 23 are DENIED. If Applicant wants the Court to consider the documents that previously were submitted without signatures, he must submit new copies of those documents that are signed. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 06/08/17. (jhawk, )
June 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MINUTE ORDER. Applicant's Motion for Expansion of the Record 18 and Supplement to Reply to Pre-Answer Response 19 filed June 6, 2017 are not signed. Applicant is directed to correct this omission within twenty-one days from the date of t his minute order or the documents will be stricken. The Court notes that Applicant indicates he previously filed a reply to Respondents' Pre-Answer Response 10 . Applicant is advised that no reply has been filed in this action. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 06/08/17. (jhawk, )
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Jones v. Archuleta et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Bernard Jones
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: Lou Archuleta
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: Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
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.


Why Is My Information Online?