Warenback v. Neven et al
Petitioner: |
Douglas Harry Warenback |
Respondent: |
Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D. W. Neven |
Case Number: |
2:2015cv01789 |
Filed: |
September 17, 2015 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Office: |
Las Vegas Office |
Presiding Judge: |
Cam Ferenbach |
Presiding Judge: |
Andrew P. Gordon |
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 |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
November 26, 2019 |
Filing
84
ORDER that the 40 first-amended petition is DENIED. FURTHER ORDER that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
May 4, 2018 |
Filing
77
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 69 Second Motion for Leave to File An Amended Petition. Petitioner's 71 Motion for Certificate of Appealability is Denied. Respondents' 70 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the Motion for Leave to Amend is Granted nunc pro tunc. Respondents' 73 Motion for an Extension of Time to File their Answer to the Petition is Granted. Respondents shall file their Answer within 45 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
February 12, 2018 |
Filing
68
ORDER Granting Respondents' 42 Motion to Dismiss. Ground 1 is DISMISSED as procedurally barred. Ground 2 is DISMISSED as not cognizable in federal habeas. Ground 4 is DISMISSED as untimely. Respondents have 60 days to file an An swer to the remaining claims in the 40 First Amended Petition. The following Motions filed by Petitioner are all DENIED: 61 Motion to Amend the Petition, 62 Motion to Transfer Petition, 63 Motion for Leave to File Supplement, and the 66 Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Petition. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
November 17, 2017 |
Filing
59
ORDER that Petitioner's four motions to file additional supplements to his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss are all Denied. Respondents' 52 Motion to Extend Time to Respondto the Motion to Supplement is Granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
May 25, 2017 |
Filing
46
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 45 Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to the 43 Opposition re 42 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk shall detach and file ECF No. 45, pp. 2-7 as petitioner's supplemental opposition to the motion to dismis s. Respondents' 41 Motion to Extend Time to File Motion to Dismiss is Granted nunc pro tunc. Respondents' 44 Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to 42 Motion to Dismiss is Granted. Reply due within 30 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
March 1, 2017 |
Filing
39
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Petition. Amended Petition due by 4/14/2017. Petitioner's 36 Motion for Leave to Incorporate Exhibits by ECF Reference is Granted. Petitioner shall refer to the exhibits already filed by respondents by exhibit number, if possible, or by ECF number. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
February 13, 2017 |
Filing
34
ORDER Granting Respondents' 21 Motion to Dismiss. The petition is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file and serve an amended petition. Respondents have 30 days from date of service to file a response. Petitioner has 30 days following service to file a reply. Petitioner's 33 Motion for Submission is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
May 3, 2016 |
Filing
17
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 13 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Petitioner's 14 Motion for Submission of the Motion to Reconsider is Denied. Respondents' 15 Motion to Extend Time to File a Responsive Pleading t o the 11 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is Granted. Respondents shall file such responsive pleading within 45 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/3/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
January 4, 2016 |
Filing
10
ORDER that the Clerk shall file and electronically serve the 1 -2 Petition on the Respondents. Respondents shall file a response to the remaining grounds of the Petition within 90 days of service of the Petition. Any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. The parties shall send courtesy copies of all exhibits to the Reno Division of this court. Petitioner's 8 Motion to Extend Time to Pay the Filing Fee is Granted nunc pro tunc. Petitioner's 7 Motion for Court to Order NDOC to Process Filing Fee is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/4/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
November 10, 2015 |
Filing
6
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 5 Motion for Extension of Time to Pay the Filing Fee (First Request). Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee sixty days from the date this Order is entered. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/10/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
|
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
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?