Williams v. Baker et al
| Michael Leon Williams |
| Renee Baker and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2013cv00334 |
| June 21, 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 |
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
50
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus(ECF No. 7 ) is denied in its entirety with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDERED the # 40 Motion to find the motion for enlargement of time moot is granted. FURTHER ORD the # 41 Motion to clarify mailing discrepancies is granted. FURTHER ORD the # 42 Motion to have clerk send a file-stamped copy of P's reply to answer is granted. FURTHER ORD Clerk shall send P a copy of his # 39 Reply to answer. (Mailed to P 6/2/2015.) Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/1/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER granting 31 motion to proceed on exhausted claims. Answer to remaining grounds due within 30 days. Reply due within 30 days of answer. Hard copy of any additional exhibits shall be forwarded to staff attorneys in Reno, NV. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/16/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER granting 10 motion to extend copy work; denying 11 motion directing Respondents to produce copies of certified judgment; granting 15 and 22 motions to extend time; granting in part and denying in part 18 motion to dismiss; and denying 26 motion for ex parte motion on orders. Petitioner shall have 30 days to respond re unexhausted claims. Please see attached for further details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/25/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER - Petitioner's 1 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Clerk shall file and electronically serve the 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -3 petition on respondents (served 9/17/2013). Respondents to answer or otherwise respond to petition within 45 day s. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have 45 days to reply. Petitioner to serve respondents copy of every pleading, motion, or document submitted for consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with original paper submitted for filin g a certificate of mailing. Any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall be filed with separate index. Hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. The Clerk sh all FILE petitioner's 1 -4 motion to file petition that exceeds pages and petitioner's 1 -5 motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner's motion to file petition that exceeds pages is GRANTED. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See document for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 09/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER OF RECUSAL. This action is referred to Chief Judge Robert C. Jones for reassignment. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/25/2013. (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.
