Taylor et al v. Myles et al
Petitioner: Michelle Taylor
Respondent: Carolyn Myles and Hon. Brian Sandoval
Case Number: 3:2013cv00035
Filed: January 25, 2013
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. 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
February 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER granting ECF Nos. 53 / 56 Motion to Withdraw counsel Richard Cornel and Donald Bergerson; denying as moot ECF Nos. 55 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and 60 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
March 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ECF No. 1 is denied in its entirety; a certificate of appealability is granted; Petitioner's Motion for Bond or Release Pending Adjudication ECF No. 46 is denied as moot; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 03/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
September 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER re 1 Petition, 40 Answer: Petitioner's reply due within 30 days. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court is highly unlikely to grant further extensions. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
July 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Leave to Make Appearance; denying 34 Motion to Dismiss; granting 35 Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
March 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER - # 24 Motion to disqualify counsel is denied without prejudice; # 31 Motion for extension of time is denied as moot; # 29 Motion for enlargement of time is granted; Answer/response to to petition due by 5/22/2015; Reply to answer due 30 following service thereof. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
June 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER Clerk shall make electronic service of this order and petition upon AG's Office (served via NEF/NEF regeneration 6/2/2014). Respondents shall have 60 days to respond to petition (please see attached for details re response/exhibits) . Counsel shall send hard copy of all exhibits, for this case, to Reno Clerk's Office. Respondent Sandoval is dismissed as respondent. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
August 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Order and judgment of dismissal ( 7 and 8 ) are VACATED. Matter is REOPENED. Petition 1 shall be REINSTATED. Within 60 days, petitioner's counsel shall either comply with loc al rules and prior directives with respect to appearing pro hac vice or shall take other appropriate action. Within 21 days, counsel shall file notice confirming he has conferred with client as to the issues noted in attached order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
August 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER re letter from Plaintiff to the Court. Letters to a judge will be disregarded. The Court will not take any action in response to the letter. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
June 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The petition in this matter shall be STRICKEN and the action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/17/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
April 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER re 2 and 3 Notices. Petitioner shall have 14 days from entry of this order within which to comply with all directives in the prior notices in this matter. If petitioner does not do so, the petition in this matter will be stricken and the action accordingly will be dismissed without prejudice without further advance notice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
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: Taylor et al v. Myles 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: Carolyn Myles
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: Hon. Brian Sandoval
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: Michelle Taylor
Represented By: Donald Thomas Bergerson
Represented By: Richard F. Cornell
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?