Larson v. Blades

Larson v. Blades

Petitioner:	Richard Larson
Respondent:	Randy Blades
Case Number:	1:2017cv00050
Filed:	February 1, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office:	Boise - Southern Office
County:	Ada - Southern
Presiding Judge:	Candy W. Dale
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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 28, 2020	Filing 40 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. 35 ) is DENIED. Claim 7 of the Second Amended Petition is DENIED on the merits. Because all of Petitioner's other claims have already been dismissed, this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)
June 5, 2019	Filing 29 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 22 ) is GRANTED. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Second Amended Petition, including all associated sub-claims, are DISMISSED withprejudice. Respondent must file an answer to the remaining claim (Claim 7) within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 28, 2020

Filing 40 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. 35 ) is DENIED. Claim 7 of the Second Amended Petition is DENIED on the merits. Because all of Petitioner's other claims have already been dismissed, this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)

June 5, 2019

Filing 29 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 22 ) is GRANTED. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Second Amended Petition, including all associated sub-claims, are DISMISSED withprejudice. Respondent must file an answer to the remaining claim (Claim 7) within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)

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: Larson v. Blades
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Richard Larson
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: Randy Blades
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?