Phillips v. Palmer et al
Petitioner: |
David B. Phillips |
Respondent: |
Jack Palmer and Nevada Attorney General |
Case Number: |
3:2009cv00377 |
Filed: |
July 13, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Office: |
Reno Office |
County: |
Washoe |
Presiding Judge: |
Valerie P. Cooke |
Presiding Judge: |
Brian E. Sandoval |
Nature of Suit: |
None |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. § 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 |
February 25, 2011 |
Filing
44
JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for petitioner's failure to exhaust his available state-court remedies. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 2/25/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
December 28, 2010 |
Filing
42
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's 38 Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to do one of the following: (1) inform this court in a sworn de claration that he wishes to dismiss ground 4 of this 9 petition, and proceed only on the remaining ground for relief; (2) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to dismiss his 9 petition to return to state court to exhaust his st ate remedies with respect to the claims set out in ground 4 of this petition; or (3) move to stay this action while he returns to state court to exhaust his state remedies with respect to the claims set out in ground 4 of his petition. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/28/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
August 24, 2010 |
Filing
37
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Rs' 6 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part with respect to Ground 4. FURTH ORD that P shall have 30 days from date of entry of this order to do one of the following: (See Order for Specifics). FURTH ORD that if P elects to dismiss the aforementioned grounds of his 9 petition and proceed on the remaining grounds, Rs shall file and serve an answer or other response to the remaining grounds w/in 45 days after P serves his declaration dismissi ng those grounds. FURTH ORD that if Rs file and serve an answer, P shall have 45 days from the date on which the answer is served to file and serve a reply. FURTH ORD that P's 27 motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel is DENIED. FURTH ORD that the court's 35 Order of August 11, 2010, is VACATED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/24/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
|
August 11, 2010 |
Filing
35
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents shall resubmit the appellant's opening brief filed with the Nevada Supreme Court in the appeal from the denial of petitioner's state habeas corpus petition, currently in the docket as respondents' exhibit 234 (#24-56), within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. ( Notice of Compliance is due by 8/25/2010.) Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/11/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
April 21, 2010 |
Filing
32
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Rs shall resubmit the appellant's opening brief filed with the Nevada Supreme Court in the appeal from the denial of P's state habeas corpus petition, currently in the docket as Rs' exhibit 234 (#24-56), within 14 days from the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/21/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
|
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
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?