Smith v. Baker et al
Michael L. Smith |
Renee Baker and Nevada Attorney General |
3:2013cv00246 |
May 9, 2013 |
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 |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 100 ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the second-amended petition (ECF No. 44 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute William Gittere for Respondent Renee Baker. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/12/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD) |
Filing 97 ORDER granting ECF No. 96 Motion to Extend Time. Petitioner has until May 11, 2021, to file a Reply in support of his Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 44 ). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/12/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB) |
Filing 95 ORDER granting ECF No. 94 Motion to Extend Time. Petitioner has until March 12, 2021, to file a Reply in support of the Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 44 ). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB) |
Filing 92 ORDER granting ECF No. 91 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents shall have up to and including Wednesday, November 25, 2020 in which to file their answer to the Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 44 ). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/23/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB) |
Filing 90 ORDER granting ECF No. 89 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents shall file and answer to the Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 44 ) on or before Wednesday, November 4, 2020. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB) |
Filing 88 ORDERED that the unopposed motion to extend time (ECF No. 87 ) is GRANTED. Answer to ECF No. 44 Second Amended Petition due by 10/5/2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend time (ECF No. 86 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/22/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) |
Filing 85 ORDER that respondents' motion for extension of time to file an answer (ECF No. 84 ) is granted. Respondents must file their answer on or before July 6, 2020. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW) |
Filing 83 ORDERED that respondents' second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 52 ) is GRANTED in part as specified herein. Respondents shall have 60 days (5/5/2020) from the date this order is entered within which to file an answer to t he remaining claims in the first amended petition (ECF No. 9 ). Petitioner shall have 45 days following service of respondents' answer in which to file a reply. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) |
Filing 81 ORDER that, within 10 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a complete copy of exhibits 209-223. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/23/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW) |
Filing 79 ORDER granting ECF No. 78 Motion to Extend Time : Reply to ECF No. 74 Response re ECF No. 52 Motion to Dismiss due by 11/13/2019. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/16/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) |
Filing 77 ORDER granting ECF No. 76 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 52 Motion to Dismiss. Reply due by 10/14/2019. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH) |
Filing 51 ORDER granting ECF No. 47 Respondents' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 44 ). Answer/Response due 3/8/2019. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/13/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH) |
Filing 43 ORDERED that petitioner's motion to reopen this action (ECF No. 41 ) is GRANTED. The stay is lifted by this order. Clerk shall REOPEN THE FILE in this action. Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the second amended petition (ECF No. 41 -1). Answer/response to second-amended petition due by 9/7/2018. Reply to response due 45 days thereafter. The parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all exhibits to Reno Staff Attorney as specified herein. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) |
Filing 39 ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 34 ) GRANTED. Action is STAYED pending final resolution of petitioner's state proceedings. The stay is conditioned upon petitioner returning to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within 45 days of the issuance of the remittitur by the Supreme Court. Respondents' first and second motions for extension of time to respond to the motion to stay (ECF Nos. 35 and 36 ) are GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Clerk SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 08/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW) |
Filing 33 ORDER granting in part 25 Motion to Dismiss as outlined in attached order. Petitioner shall have 30 days to inform the court re option as to unexhausted grounds. Please see attached order for further details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/25/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC) |
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.