Talley v. Nevens et al
Petitioner: Maurice Daniel James Talley
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D.W. Nevens
Case Number: 2:2016cv00957
Filed: April 27, 2016
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. 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
April 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's three Rule 60(b) motions for relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 31 , 33 , 34 ) are all DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's two motions for status check (ECF Nos. 32 , 35 ) are both DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/4/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)
May 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER denying 1 Petition and Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/8/2018., Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
March 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER that Respondents' 13 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer to the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is Granted Nunc Pro Tunc. Respondent's 17 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal is Granted. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
October 6, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER that the Clerk shall ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1) on the respondents, and shall add Adam Paul Laxalt as counsel for respondents. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition, including potential ly by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the petition. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. FURTHER ORDE RED that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3 ) is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel and motion for discovery (docketed as two motions at ECF Nos. 2 and 8 ); two motions for evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 4 and 9 ); and motion to compel (ECF No. 5 ) are all DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 10/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
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: Talley v. Nevens 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: D.W. Nevens
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: Maurice Daniel James Talley
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?