Barnett v. State of Nevada et al
Petitioner: Dustin Barnett
Respondent: Nevada Attorney General and Nevada, State Of
Case Number: 3:2014cv00155
Filed: March 24, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: William G. Cobb
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
October 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER that Petitioner's motion to reopen ECF No. 24 , construed as motion for relief under Rule 60(b), is denied; Clerk directed to update Petitioner's address to ESP; Clerk directed to send Petitioner a copy of docket sheet, Court's orders ECF Nos. 20 and 23 with this order (mailed on 10/15/2018). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
July 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER that the petition is denied on the merits and that this actionshall be dismissed with prejudice; a certificate of appealability is denied; Clerk directed to enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and against petitioner, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
October 29, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER granting 16 letter requesting extension of time to file reply to 10 Answer to Habeas Petition. Petitioner's reply shall be filed within 60 days. Clerk shall send petitioner first page of answer 10 and first page of index of exhibits 11 bearing date on which those documents were filed (mailed 10/29/14). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
July 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER denying as moot 4 motion to proceed IFP; directing Clerk to file and e-serve the petition upon respondents; directing respondents to file an answer to the petition within 45 days. Petitioner shall file and serve a reply within 45 days of the answer. Any exhibits shall be filed with separate index. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in Reno, NV. Petitioner shall serve respondents copy of all pleadings and include certificate of service. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/25/2014. (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: Barnett v. State of Nevada 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: Dustin Barnett
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 ]
Respondent: Nevada, State Of
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?