Marquez v. McDaniels et al
| Samuel Isaac Marquez |
| EK McDaniels and Attorney General of the State of Nevada |
| 3:2008cv00647 |
| December 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| White Pine |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Brian E. Sandoval |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
57
ORDER denying in its entirety 19 Amended Petition; denying a certificate of appealability; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 49 Motion to Extend Time and granting 53 Motion to Substitute Party. Renee Baker substituted for E.K. McDaniels. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/12/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER ORDERED that P's # 39 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED, such that Grounds 2, 3(c), and 4 are DISMISSED with prejudice as procedurally defaulted. FURTHER ORDERED that Rs shall file an answer to the remaining grounds in the # 19 first a mended petition on the merits by 11/22/2014. FURTHER ORDERED P may file a reply to answer within 30 days of service. FURTHER ORDERED that any additional hard copies of exhibits submitted by counsel shall be forwarded to the Clerk's Office in Reno. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's 40 Motion to Extend Time re Respondents' 39 Motion to Dismiss. The time for petitioner to file a response is extended up to and including June 13, 2013. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 06/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting 34 Motion to Reopen Case. Respondents to file response to 19 Amended Petition (in accordance with the terms of the attached order) within 60 days. Petitioner to file reply/opposition within 30 days from service of response. Hard copy of additional exhibits shall be forwarded for this case to staff attorneys in Las Vegas. Case reopened. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/28/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER STAYING CASE pending exhaustion. FURTHER ORD grant of stay conditioned upon P's filing state petition within 45 days, and filing a motion to reopen within 45 days of remittitur. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action until such time as the Court grants a motion to reopen the matter. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/19/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER granting 18 plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to file an amended petition. ( Amended Petition due by 11/25/2009.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/24/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER granting 16 petitioner's Motion to Extend Time to file an amended complaint. ( Amended Complaint deadline: 11/18/2009.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/26/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER granting 14 petitioner's Motion to Extend Time to file an amended petition. ( Amended Petition due by 10/19/2009.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/9/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
