Hansen v. Idaho, State of
1:2003cv00212 |
May 29, 2003 |
US District Court for the District of Idaho |
Boise - Southern Office |
Edward J. Lodge |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
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 73 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 46 ) is DENIED, and this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court will not grant a Certificate of Appealability in this case. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm) |
Filing 64 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Dismiss; Claims One, Two, Three (B), and Five are DISMISSED with prejudice. Claim Three (A) and (C), Claim Four, and Claim Six are not dismissed. Respondent shall file an answer to the remaining claims within 60 days after entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (dks) |
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 Idaho 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: Hansen v. Idaho, State of | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.