Snure v. Warden et al
Petitioner: Theodore C. Snure
Respondent: Nevada Attorney General and Warden
Unknown: Catherine Cortez-Masto
Case Number: 3:2011cv00344
Filed: May 13, 2011
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: 28:2254 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
June 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER denying ECF No. 4 Petition and denying certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
June 3, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss. Grounds 1, 3 and 5 are dismissed. Answer to remaining claim due within 45 days. Reply due 45 days from date on which answer is served. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/3/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
January 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER granting 26 motion to reopen case. Respondents to respond to the remaining grounds of 4 petition within 45 days; Petitioner to reply within 45 days thereafter. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
April 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' 23 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, all provisions regarding the stay, as specified in the Court's 22 Order SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 4/9/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
March 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDERED that P's # 19 Motion for stay and abeyance is GRANTED. FURTHER ORD this action is STAYED pending exhaustion. FURTHER ORD the grant of a stay is conditioned upon P filing a state post-conviction petition BY 4/30/2012 and returning to fe deral court with a motion to reopen within 45 days of issuance of the remittitur. FURTHER ORD that as a condition of the stay, P shall exhaust all of his unexhausted claims in state court during the stay of this action. FURTHER ORD that the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action, until such time as the Court grants a motion to reopen the matter. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 3/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
December 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that respondents' motion to dismiss 6 is GRANTED as follows: Grounds 2,4,6,8, and 9 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Gounds 1,3,and 5 are UNEXHAUSTED. Gound 7 is the only ground of the petition that states a cognizable federal habeas claim and that is also exhausted. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to inform the Court (1) if he wishes to formally abandon the unexhausted grou nds and proceed on the exhausted ground; (2) if he wishes to dismiss this petition without prejudice in order to return to state court; or (3) file a motion for a stay/abeyance. FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted gr ounds, respondents shall have thirty (30) days of abandonment to file an answer to the remaining grounds. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days following service of respondents' answer in which to file a reply. FURTHER ORD ERED that if petitioner fails to respond to this order, this case may be dismissed. (See Order for specifics).(Notice of Compliance is due by 1/15/2012.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 12/14/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
July 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 11 motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. FURTH ORD that P's 12 motion for an extension of time to file a motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. FURTH ORD that P is granted 30 days from the date of entry of this order in which to file a response to the 6 motion to dismiss the petition. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 7/15/2011. (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

Search for this case: Snure v. Warden 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: Nevada Attorney General
Represented By: Daniel M. Roche
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: Warden
Represented By: Daniel M. Roche
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: Theodore C. Snure
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 ]
Unknown: Catherine Cortez-Masto
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?