Oflaherty v. Neven et al
Petitioner: Meredith Oflaherty
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Nevada and Warden Neven
Case Number: 2:2016cv01985
Filed: August 19, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Nancy J. Koppe
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
November 15, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this action shall be dismissed without prejudice. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that 15 respondents' unopposed motion for leave to file exhibits in camera and under seal is GRANTED. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all remaining p ending 12 , 17 motions are DENIED without prejudice as moot. The clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
February 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition upon the respondents. The clerk of court SHALL ADD attorney general Adam Paul Laxalt to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDER ED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 2 petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 petitioner's motion to compel production of medical records is DENIED.See Order for further details. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
September 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER Denying 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date this order is entered in which to have the $5.00 filing fee sent to the Clerk. Failure to do so may result in the dismis salof this action.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL SEND petitioner two copies of thisorder. Petitioner is ordered to make the necessary arrangements to have one copy of this order attached to the check in the amount of the $5.00 filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall RETAIN the petition but not file it at this time. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
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: Oflaherty v. Neven 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: Warden Neven
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: Meredith Oflaherty
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?