Davis v. Palmer et al
| Kevin Scott Davis |
| Nevada Attorney General and Palmer |
| 3:2011cv00897 |
| December 15, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| Robert C. Jones |
| 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
13
JUDGMENT -This action is DISMISSED as untimely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the issue of whether the court was correct in its determination that this action is untimely. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 1/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER GRANTING # 1 Application to proceed IFP. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall file motion re excess pages, and the petition. FURTHER ORD P's motion to file petition in excess of four additional pages is GRANTED. FURTHER ORD P shall show cause by 3/25/ 2012 why court should not dismiss action as untimely. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall add AG as Rs' counsel. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall E-serve Rs copy of petition. ( E-service 2/24/2012. ) Rs' counsel shall enter notice of appearance by 3/15/2012, but no further response required until further order of court. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/23/2012. (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.
