Banark v. Adams et al
Petitioner: Lonnie Lee Banark
Respondent: Warden Adams and Attorney General of the State of Nevada
Case Number: 2:2016cv01948
Filed: August 15, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Jennifer A. Dorsey
Presiding Judge: Peggy A. Leen
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
August 27, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 34 the second-amended petition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 94 petitioner's motion for temporary injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/27/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
July 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 85 , 87 , 88 , 92 the motions for hearing and expedited decision are DENIED. The court will address Banark's petition in due course. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 90 Banark's request that the Nevada Attorney Generals Office Cease and Stop Reassigning New Deputy Attorneys to this case is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
April 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 80 , 81 , 83 the motions for hearing and expedited decision are DENIED. The court will address Banarks petition in due course. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
January 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 72 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 40 respondents' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents have until 3/19/18, to ANSWER the second-amended petition on grounds 2(2)(11) and 2(17). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 54 Banark's motion for summary judgment, 59 motion for relief, 62 motion for hearing, and 67 motion for evidentiary hearing are all DENIED as moot in light of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 69 respondents' motion to strike petitioner's supplement to his reply to motion for hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
May 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 51 petitioner's motion to strike respondents' reply in support of their motion to dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 52 petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
April 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER Granting 47 Motion to Extend Time re 40 MOTION to Dismiss. (Replies due by 4/18/2017.) Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
January 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 37 petitioner's motion to identify staff attorney is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
December 12, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 9 Banark's motion to file an amended petition is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to FILE the amended petition, 9 -1. Respondents must respond to the amended petition by 3/12/17. Banark will then ha ve 45 days from service of the response to file a reply or opposition. All other briefing requirements in my 11/1/16, 5 scheduling order remain in effect, except these amended deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 8 Banark's motion to court is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 10 Banark's motion to centralize exhibits is GRANTED as set forth in this order. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
November 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1 Banark's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and 3 his motion for copies is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to FILE and electronically SERVE 1 -1 Banark's petition on respondents and add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents must respond to the petition by 1/31/16. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 11/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
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: Banark v. Adams 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: Warden Adams
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: 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 ]
Petitioner: Lonnie Lee Banark
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?