Hernandez v. Gentry et al
Petitioner: Robert Michael Hernandez
Respondent: Attorney General of the State of Nevada and Jo Gentry
Case Number: 2:2017cv02565
Filed: October 2, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Jennifer A. Dorsey
Presiding Judge: Carl W. Hoffman
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 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 9 petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance is GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending exhaustion of petitioner's unexhausted claim(s). The Clerk of Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
November 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 3 the order and 4 judgment entered on October 26 and 27, 2017, respectively, are VACATED. The Clerk of Court is directed to DETACH and FILE 1 -1 the habeas petition. The Clerk of Court is also directed to ADD Ada m Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents, and electronically SERVE a copy of the petition and this order upon the respondents. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 11/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
October 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a petition in a new action with either the $5.00 filing fee or a properly completed application form to proceed in forma pauperis< /i>. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because jurists of reason would not find my dismissal of this improperly commenced action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect. The Clerk of Court is directed to SEND to Hernandez two copies each of an application form to proceed in forma pauperis for incarcerated persons and a noncapital § 2254 habeas petition form, one copy of the instructions for each form, and a copy of the papers that he submitted in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
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: Hernandez v. Gentry 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: Jo Gentry
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: Robert Michael Hernandez
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?