Blake v. Baker et al
Petitioner: Alfonso Manuel Blake
Respondent: E.K. McDaniel and Catherine Cortez Mastos
Case Number: 3:2009cv00327
Filed: June 24, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
County: Clark
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: Robert C. Jones
Presiding Judge: Robert A. McQuaid
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
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
March 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 188 ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 176 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (see order for details). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
September 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 154 ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 130 Motion to Dismiss; some claims dismissed; Respondents' answer to petition due 11/27/2016; in all other respects, the order entered May 11, 2015 ECF No. 123 remains as the schedule for further proceedings; denying ECF No. 141 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 09/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
May 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER - Second Amended Petition due by 7/10/2015; Response to Petition due 60 days after service thereof; and Reply due 45 days thereafter. Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service of a reply to file and serve a response to the re ply. If respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner shall have 30 days following service of the motion to file and serve an opposition to the motion. Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service of the opposition to the motion to file and serve a reply. If petitioner wishes to request an evidentiary hearing, he shall file and serve a motion therefor. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners # 121 Motion for compliance is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/11/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
October 16, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER reversing 87 Order Dismissing Case and 88 Judgment. Petitioner shall have 10 days to file report of efforts to exhaust state court remedies for unexhausted claims. Respondents shall have 7 days from the date that report is filed to file response. Clerk shall administratively re-open proceedings herein. Case reopened. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/16/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
March 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 98 AMENDED JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner is GRANTED a COA with respect to the following issue: Whether th e district courts ruling, that as a matter of law a Strickland claim of ineffectiveassistance of post-conviction counsel cannot constitute good cause for failing to exhaust a claim in afederal habeas corpus action, was erroneous, where state law reco gnizes that ineffective assistance ofpost-conviction counsel does establish cause allowing a habeas petitioner to file a successive petition,but that right is restricted only to capital cases. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 3/26/2012. (Clerk sending copy of this Order to USCA via email in regards to USCA Case No. 12-15522.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
January 18, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/18/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
December 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDERED that P's # 78 Motion for Permission to Appeal is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that P shall have 20 days from the date this order is entered within which to file a Notice of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims (as specified, see pdf order ) FURTHER ORD that, if P abandons his unexhausted claims within the time allowed, Rs shall have 60 days from the date the Notice of Abandonment is filed within which to file an answer to the remaining claims in the # 17 Amended petition. FURTHER ORD that P's # 81 Motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/7/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
October 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's 61 motion for clarification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Order for specific claims that are hereby exhausted and unexhausted. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner shall have twenty (20) days from the date this order is entered within which to file a Notice of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims indicating the claims listed herein this order are to be deleted from the 17 amended petition. FURTHER ORDERED, if petitioner abandons his unexhausted claims w/in the time allowed, respondents shall have sixty (60) days from the date the Notice of Abandonment is filed w/in which to file an answer to the remaining claims in the amended petition. FURTHER ORDERED, respondents' 70 motion to suspend deadline for filing an answer is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/17/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
September 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 75 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, on 9/28/2011. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' 72 Motion for Substitution of Respondent is GRANTED. The Clerk shall substitute Renee Baker for E.K. McDaniel, on the docket, as the respondent warden in this action, and shall update the caption of the action to reflect this change. Renee Baker added. E.K. McDaniel terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
March 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Stay and Abeyance 54 is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have twenty (20) days within which to file a Notice of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims, indicating that Claims One through Five, Six(A)(B)and(D), Seven(A-F)(H-J),and Nine through Thirteen are to be deleted from his amended petition 17 . FURTHER ORDERED that, if petitioner does not abandon his unexhausted claims, the amended pe tition 17 shall be dismissed.FURTHER ORDERED that, if petitioner abandons his unexhausted claims, respondents shall have sixty (60) days from the date of Notice of Abandonment within which to file an Answer to the remaining claims in the second amended petition 17 . Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/14/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
November 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDERED that P's # 29 Motion for stay and abeyance is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that Rs' # 33 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORD that P shall have twenty (20) days from the date this order is entered within wh ich to file a Notice of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims, indicating that Claims One through Five, Six(A)(B)and(D), Seven(A-F)(H-J), and Nine through Thirteen are to be deleted from his # 17 Amended petition. FURTHER ORD that, if P does not abandon his unexhausted claims within the time allowed, the # 17 Amended petition shall be dismissed. FURTHER ORD that, if P abandons his unexhausted claims within the time allowed, Rs shall have sixty (60) days from the date the Notice of Abandonment is f iled within which to file an Answer to the remaining claims in the # 17 Second revised amended petition. FURTHER ORD that Rs' and P's motions for extension of time (Docket ## 32 / 48 ) are GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of the date each was filed, respectively. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/2/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
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: Blake v. Baker 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: Alfonso Manuel Blake
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: E.K. McDaniel
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: Catherine Cortez Mastos
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?