Aguilar v. Baker et al
Petitioner: Dayomashell David Aguilar
Respondent: Baker and Nevada Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2012cv00315
Filed: June 11, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Valerie P. Cooke
Presiding 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
June 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER that the remaining grounds in the Petition are denied on the merits and that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice; a certificate of appealability is denied; Clerk directed to enter judgment, in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
February 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion to Dismiss. Grounds 1-4 and 10-12 are dismissed. Answer to remaining claims due within 45 days. Motions to extend time 60 and 62 are granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
February 3, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER granting 52 Motion to Reopen Case. Answer re 28 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due within 45 days. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/3/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
August 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER denying without prejudice 36 Motion to Dismiss and granting 50 Motion to Stay. Clerk shall administratively close this action until such time as the court grants motion to reopen. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/5/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
December 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER re 28 Amended Petition. Respondents shall have 45 days to answer or otherwise respond (due by 1/25/2014). If respondents file an answer, petitioner shall have 45 days to file a reply. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
July 2, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER - P shall file an IFP application, or pay $5.00 filing fee, by 8/1/2012. (Clerk mailed P IFP form with instructions on 7/3/2012. ) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 7/2/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
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: Aguilar v. Baker et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Dayomashell David Aguilar
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: Baker
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: Nevada Attorney General
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?