Prator v. Neven et al
Tyrone Prator |
Attorney General of Nevada and Dwight Neven |
2:2010cv01209 |
July 21, 2010 |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Las Vegas Office |
Lawrence R. Leavitt |
James C. Mahan |
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 27 ORDER Granting 22 Motion to Dismiss. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OFAPPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/28/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR) |
Filing 20 ORDER Denying 16 Motion for the submission of the original cassette tape and 18 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Respondents SHALL submit the recording of petitioners March 1, 2009 disciplinary hearing on compact disc to the court within thirty 30 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/7/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR) |
Filing 10 ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the petition and electronically serve upon respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED respondents shall have 45 days from entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond. If answer filed, petitioner shall have 45 days from the date of service to file reply. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/18/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS) |
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 Nevada 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
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.