Person v. Neven et al
Petitioner: Michael Robert Person
Respondent: Dwight Neven and Howard Skolnik
Case Number: 3:2010cv00480
Filed: August 3, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Robert A. McQuaid
Referring Judge: Edward C. Reed
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
September 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER denying in its entirety 36 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 09/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
March 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER granting 47 Motion to Expand the Record. Documents submitted with motion, 47 -1 and 47 -2, comprise part of the state record and will be considered by this Court in its ultimate ruling. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/14/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
June 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that respondents' motion to seal Exhibits 79 and 80 44 is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court SHALL KEEP EXHIBITS 79 AND 80 45 UNDER SEAL.Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 6/25/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
May 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that respondents' motion to file a late pleading 37 and motion for an extension of time to file an answer 38 are GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' answer to the amended petition shall befiled not late r than June 18, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other provisions of this Courts March 14, 2012 order REMAIN IN EFFECT.(Answer due 6/18/2012). Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 5/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
March 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request to file an amended habeas petition that contains only exhausted claims is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED, the amended habeas petition SHALL be filed and served on respondents w/in thirty (30) days from the filing date of this order. FURTHER ORDERED, respondents SHALL FILE AN ANSWER w/in forty-five (45) days from the date of being served with the amended petition. No further motions to dismiss will be entertained . FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner SHALL FILE HIS REPLY to the answer w/in thirty (30) days of being served with it. FURTHER ORDERED, hard copies of all filings SHALL BE SUBMITTED to the staff attorneys in the Reno Division. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 3/14/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
August 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDERED that Rs' # 27 Motion to strike P's pro se documents is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that P's pro se letter and request for judicial notice at ECF Nos. 25 & 26 are HEREBY STRICKEN. FURTHER ORDERED that P SHALL proceed through h is counsel of record and shall file no further pro se documents. The Clerk of Court SHALL RETURN, UNFILED, any further pro se documents submitted by petitioner. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 8/1/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 8/1/2011 to reflect copy of Order mailed to P at HDSP (DRM).
July 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' 11 motion to dismiss the petition is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. Grounds One and Two of the petitioner are unexhausted. 2. Ground Three of the fed eral habeas petition is exhausted as to the following subclaims: (1) that trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective in failing to present personality profile evidence at sentencing; and (2) that the trial court was furnished impalpable, highly susp ect information at sentencing, and the prosecutor relied on the evidence in advocating consecutive sentences. (3) All other parts of Ground Three are unexhausted. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to either: (1) inform this Court if he wishes to abandon the unexhausted grounds for relief and proceed on the exhausted grounds; OR (2) inform this Court if he wishes to dismiss this petition w/out prejudice in order to return to state court to exhaust h is unexhausted claims; OR (3) file a motion for a stay and abeyance to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Respondents may respond if petitioner chooses to file a motion for a stay and abeyance, or seek other appropriate relief. FURTHER ORDERED, if petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted grounds, respondents shall have thirty (30) days from the date petitioner serves his declaration of abandonment in which to file an answer to petitioner's remaining grounds for relief. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner shall have thirty (30) days following service of respondents' answer in which to file a reply. FURTHER ORDERED, if petitioner fails to respond to this order within the time permitted, this case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 7/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
November 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to appoint Richard F. Cornell as his counsel 3 is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the CJA Coordinator (ack'd). FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for procedural orders 4 is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall electronicall ser ve the petition 2 and all attachments upon the respondents (ack'd). FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days within which to answer or respond to the petition. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entert ained. Petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from date of service to file a reply. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall proceed through his counsel and shall not file documents pro se unless ordered by the Court.Catherine Co rtez Masto answer due 12/18/2010; Dwight Neven answer due 12/18/2010; Howard Skolnik answer due 12/18/2010.( Responses due by 12/18/2010.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 11/2/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC) Modified on 11/3/2010 to reflect that a copy of this Order was sent to petitioner. (MLC).
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: Person v. Neven 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: Dwight Neven
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: Howard Skolnik
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: Michael Robert Person
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?