Binford v. Palmer et al
Petitioner: Robert Binford
Respondent: Jack Palmer and Nevada Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2008cv00360
Filed: June 27, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Washoe
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: Valerie P. Cooke
Presiding Judge: Larry R. Hicks
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDERED that P's second motion for the appointment of counsel ( # 22 , at pp. 19-22 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the # 6 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and P's # 12 Additional statement of claim are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that P is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/13/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
May 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 respondents' Motion to Dismiss as follows: (1) Respondents argument that the petition should be dismissed for failing to set forth the grounds on which he seeks relief is denied. The state petiti on and motion are appropriately incorporated by reference into petitioners federal habeas petition. (2) The grounds of the federal petition (Docket #6), and the amended petition, construed as a statement of additional claims (Docket #12) are exhaust ed. Respondents motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust is denied. (3) Respondents motion to dismiss Grounds 1-5 and Ground 6(u) as procedurally barred is granted. Grounds 1-5 and Ground 6(u) of the federal habeas petition are dismis sed with prejudice. This action shall proceed on the remaining grounds. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order, respondents SHALL FILE an answer to all remaining grounds of the federal petition (Doc ket #6), and the amended petition, construed as a statement of additional claims (Docket #12). Successive motions to dismiss are prohibited. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner may file his reply to the answer within thirty (30) days of being served with the answer. ( Responses due by 6/22/2009.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/22/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
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: Binford v. Palmer et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Binford
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: Jack Palmer
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: Nevada Attorney General
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?