Santistevan v. Smith

Santistevan v. Smith

Petitioner:	David L. Santistevan
Respondent:	Johanna Smith
Case Number:	1:2011cv00319
Filed:	July 14, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office:	Boise - Southern Office
County:	Ada - Southern
Presiding Judge:	Larry M. Boyle
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
January 9, 2014	Filing 45 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Second Motion to Extend Time to File Traverse 38 is GRANTED. Petitioner's Amended Second Motion to Extend Time to File Traverse 41 is GRANTED. Petitioner's Traverse (Dkt. 4 2) is deemed timely. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 is DENIED, and this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
September 7, 2012	Filing 27 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss. No later than 45 days from the date of this Order, Petitioner may file a Motion to Proceed With Procedurally Defaulted Claims, together with a supporting br ief, addressing whether the Martinez cause and prejudice issue noted above is applicable to excuse the default of his defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (krb)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 9, 2014

Filing 45 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Second Motion to Extend Time to File Traverse 38 is GRANTED. Petitioner's Amended Second Motion to Extend Time to File Traverse 41 is GRANTED. Petitioner's Traverse (Dkt. 4 2) is deemed timely. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 is DENIED, and this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

September 7, 2012

Filing 27 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss. No later than 45 days from the date of this Order, Petitioner may file a Motion to Proceed With Procedurally Defaulted Claims, together with a supporting br ief, addressing whether the Martinez cause and prejudice issue noted above is applicable to excuse the default of his defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (krb)

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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Santistevan v. Smith
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Johanna Smith
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 ]
Petitioner: David L. Santistevan
Represented By:	James K Ball
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?