Brown v. Ramirez

Brown v. Ramirez

Petitioner:	Keith A Brown
Respondent:	Alberto Ramirez
Case Number:	1:2017cv00093
Filed:	March 2, 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:	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
November 19, 2019	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Petitioners motion for reconsideration (construed as included in Dkt. 34 ), is DENIED. Claim 1 of the Petition (Dkt. 1 ) is DENIED. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be r easonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Petitioner wishes to appeal, he must file a timely notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (jd)
March 26, 2018	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal 12 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Petitioner's Motion for Application of Martinez v. Ryan 14 is CONDITIONALLY DENIED. Within 28 days after entry of this Order, Petitioner may supplement the record. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 19, 2019

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Petitioners motion for reconsideration (construed as included in Dkt. 34 ), is DENIED. Claim 1 of the Petition (Dkt. 1 ) is DENIED. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be r easonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Petitioner wishes to appeal, he must file a timely notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (jd)

March 26, 2018

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal 12 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Petitioner's Motion for Application of Martinez v. Ryan 14 is CONDITIONALLY DENIED. Within 28 days after entry of this Order, Petitioner may supplement the record. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

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: Brown v. Ramirez
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Keith A Brown
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: Alberto Ramirez
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?