Taylor v. Yordy

Taylor v. Yordy

Petitioner:	Larry Eugene Taylor
Respondent:	Yordy
Case Number:	1:2017cv00482
Filed:	November 21, 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
December 22, 2021	Filing 52 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 39 ) is DENIED. Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Dkt. 43 ) is GRANTED. Respondent's Motion to File an Over size Brief (Dkt. 46 ) is GRANTED. Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 47 ) is GRANTED. The (Second) Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 37 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgme nt against Warden Ramirez (Dkt. 49 ) is DENIED. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governin g Section 2254 Cases. If Petitioner files a timely notice of appeal, the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of the notice of appeal, together with this Order, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court. 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 (kt)
November 4, 2020	Filing 38 ORDER REVIEWING (SECOND) AMENDED PETITION re 37 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Larry Allan Taylor. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Petition (Dkt. 33 ) is GRANTED. The (Second) Amend ed Petition at Docket 37 is considered timely. Petitioner may proceed to the next stage of habeas corpus proceedings on Claims 1, 5, and 7. Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are DISMISSED for failure to state a federal habeas corpus claim upon which relief can be granted. Within 120 days after entry of this Order, Respondent shall have the option of filing either of the following: (1) a motion for summary dismissal or partial summary dismissal on procedural grounds; or (2) an answer and brief on the claims that were adjudicated on the merits by the Idaho Supreme Court. 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 (ckh)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 22, 2021

Filing 52 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 39 ) is DENIED. Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Dkt. 43 ) is GRANTED. Respondent's Motion to File an Over size Brief (Dkt. 46 ) is GRANTED. Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 47 ) is GRANTED. The (Second) Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 37 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgme nt against Warden Ramirez (Dkt. 49 ) is DENIED. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governin g Section 2254 Cases. If Petitioner files a timely notice of appeal, the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of the notice of appeal, together with this Order, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court. 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 (kt)

November 4, 2020

Filing 38 ORDER REVIEWING (SECOND) AMENDED PETITION re 37 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Larry Allan Taylor. IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Petition (Dkt. 33 ) is GRANTED. The (Second) Amend ed Petition at Docket 37 is considered timely. Petitioner may proceed to the next stage of habeas corpus proceedings on Claims 1, 5, and 7. Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are DISMISSED for failure to state a federal habeas corpus claim upon which relief can be granted. Within 120 days after entry of this Order, Respondent shall have the option of filing either of the following: (1) a motion for summary dismissal or partial summary dismissal on procedural grounds; or (2) an answer and brief on the claims that were adjudicated on the merits by the Idaho Supreme Court. 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 (ckh)

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: Taylor v. Yordy
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Larry Eugene Taylor
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: Yordy
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?