Romano v. Legrande et al
| Robert Romano |
| Legrande and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2014cv00187 |
| April 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| Miranda M. Du |
| 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
57
ORDER that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 7 ) is denied on its merits, and this action is therefore dismissed with prejudice; the Court denies petitioner a certificate of appealability; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER that Respondents' motion for extension of time (ECF No. 53 ) is granted in part. Respondents will have until the close of business on September 24, 2018, to supplement the record with the aforementioned materials. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER that Respondents must supplement the record with the jury instructions, or file a notice indicating where in this Court's record the instructions may be located by 9/16/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER that Respondents must supplement the record with the transcripts described in order, or file a notice indicating where in this Court's record those transcripts may be located by 9/10/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER denying ECF No. 41 Motion for Appointment of Cousel; granting in part ECF No. 42 Motion for Extension of Time to file Reply to ECF No. 38 Answer to Amended Habeas Petition. Reply due by 9/3/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER - Claims specified herein are dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. Answer to remaining claims due by 12/30/2016. Reply due 45 days after service of answer. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/14/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 20 Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 7 First Amended Petition; holding that some claims are not exhausted; giving Petitioner 30 days to file motion re unexhausted claims. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER denying Petitioner's 9 Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/3/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER Motion to proceed IFP 3 is denied as moot. Motion for appointment of counsel 5 is denied. Motion for permission to exceed page limits 4 is granted. Clerk shall file and electronically serve amended petition 7 upon respondents (served via NEF regeneration 10/20/14). Respondents shall have 45 days to answer or otherwise respond to amended petition. Hard copy of state court record exhibits shall be forwarded to staff attorneys in Reno Division. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/20/14. (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.
