Elliott v. McDaniel et al
| Petitioner: |
Robert W. Elliott |
| Respondent: |
E.K. McDaniel and Nevada Attorney General |
| Case Number: |
3:2011cv00041 |
| Filed: |
January 21, 2011 |
| Court: |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Office: |
Reno Office |
| Presiding Judge: |
Valerie P. Cooke |
| Presiding Judge: |
Larry R. Hicks |
| Nature of Suit: |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 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 |
| September 14, 2021 |
Filing
91
ORDER - The amended petition (ECF No. 49 ) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/14/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SC)
|
| June 4, 2020 |
Filing
84
ORDER - Petitioner's Second Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 82 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Petitioner's Third Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 83 ) is granted. Petitioner must file his reply in support of the Amended Petition (ECF No. 49 ) on or before June 15, 2020. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/4/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
|
| April 6, 2020 |
Filing
81
ORDERED Respondents' first and second motions for extension of time to file an answer (ECF Nos. 76 , 77 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc. Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of the petition (ECF No. 79 ) is granted. Petitioner must file his reply on or before May 1, 2020. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
| August 22, 2019 |
Filing
74
ORDER - Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 60 ) is granted in part as specified herein. Respondents will have until 10/21/2019 file an answer to the remaining claims in the first-amended petition (ECF No. 49 ); Petitioner wil l have 45 days thereafter to file a reply. Respondents' motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 72 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
| May 30, 2019 |
Filing
71
ORDER - Respondents' third and fourth motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF Nos. 57 , 59 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc. Petitioner's first and second motions for extension of time to file an op position to the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 64 , 65 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc. Respondents' unopposed motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 68 / 69 ) is granted Respondents must file their reply to ECF No. 66 Response re ECF No. 60 Motion to Dismiss on or before July 5, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/30/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
| August 18, 2017 |
Filing
43
ORDER granting Petitioner's ECF No. 39 Motion for Reconsideration; vacating the Court's ECF No. 38 Order; denying as moot Petitioner's ECF No. 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Show Cause Orde r; directing counsel for Petitioner to meet with Petitioner as soon as reasonably possible. Amended petition due within 90 days, response due within 45 days thereafter, and reply due within 30 days after response. Any exhibits to be filed with separate index. Courtesy copies of any exhibits to be forwarded -- for this case -- to staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
| December 13, 2016 |
Filing
38
ORDER - Petitioner must file a response to this order demonstrating that he is entitled to a stay of these federal habeas proceedings by 1/12/2017. Respondents will file their reply, if any, within 30 days of the date that petitioner files his response. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/13/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
| October 29, 2014 |
Filing
23
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required in this procedural context, a certificate of appealability is denied. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
| March 13, 2012 |
Filing
12
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's 9 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the 10 motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART, such that the time for petitioner to mail a response to the prior show cause order 7 for filing is extended up to and including forty-five (45) days after entry of this order. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the 11 motion for expedited ruling is GRANTED per this order denying the motion for appointment of coun sel. If petitioner does not timely respond to the show cause order, the petition will be dismissed without further advance notice. (Show Cause Response due by 4/28/2012.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/13/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - 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
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?