Brown v. Williams et al
Petitioner: Erick Marquis Brown
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Nevada and Brian Williams, Sr.
Case Number: 2:2014cv00194
Filed: February 5, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Carl W. Hoffman
Presiding Judge: James C. Mahan
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER Denying Petitioner's 48 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability with respect to the denial of his motion. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/3/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USCA - SLD)
February 18, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 22 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 41 and 45 Motions to Strike are DENIED. 42 Motion to extend time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of October 5, 2015. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
May 18, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER that Petitioner's 9 and 17 Motions relating to Appointment of Counsel are Denied. Respondents' 14 Motion for Clarification is Granted. The clerk shall electronically file, as a new and separate docket entry, the petition er's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus currently located at ECF No. 9-1, p. 56-149. Respondents have 45 days from entry of this order to answer or respond to the amended petition. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to the staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/18/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
July 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Respondents shall have 45 days from entry of this order to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. Reply due 45 days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/25/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: AG - SLR)
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Brown v. Williams et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Nevada
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: Brian Williams, Sr.
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: Erick Marquis 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 ]

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?