Barcus v. Smith et al
| Matthew Barcus |
| Nevada Attorney General and Greg Smith |
| 3:2011cv00857 |
| November 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| Edward C. Reed |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
39
ORDER denying 38 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 36 Notice of Appeal. (E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/16/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER denying 7 petition for writ of habeas corpus; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER Motion to Appoint Counsel 24 is DENIED. Motion to Dismiss 18 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Petitioner shall have 30 days to advise court re unexhausted claims. Please see attached for further details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that respondents' motion for enlargement of time 12 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this order to file their response to the petition. (Responses due by 6/8/2012.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 4/24/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion to amend his petition 10 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ELECTRONICALLY SERVE thedocument at ECF 10 , which the court shall construe as a Statement of Additional Claims an d hereinafter refer to the document as such, on respondents (electronically served on 3/2/2012). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond, to the pet ition. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.(Responses due by 4/16/2012.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 3/1/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLYSERVE the petition (ECF # 1 -1) on the Rs. ( E-service performed 1/25/2012 ) FURTHER ORD R's answer/response to petition due by 3/10/2012. If an answer is filed, P shall have 45 days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply. FURTHER ORD henceforth P shall serve AG with a copy of every document submitted for consideration, together with a certificat of service. FURTHER ORD that any state court record exhibits filed by Rs here in shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded for this case to the staff attorneys in Reno. FURTHER ORD that P's ex parte motion for appointment of counsel (ECF # 1 -2) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 1/24/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
