Warren v. Masto et al
Petitioner: |
David Thomas Warren |
Respondent: |
Catherine Cortez Masto and Nevada Attorney General |
Case Number: |
3:2014cv00479 |
Filed: |
September 17, 2014 |
Court: |
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
Office: |
Reno Office |
Presiding Judge: |
Valerie P. Cooke |
Presiding Judge: |
Robert C. Jones |
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 |
July 13, 2017 |
Filing
32
JUDGMENT. Signed by Clerk of Court Debra K. Kempi on 7/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
July 12, 2017 |
Filing
31
ORDER denying ECF No. 11 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
July 18, 2016 |
Filing
27
ORDERED that respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16 ) isGRANTED in part. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24,and 25 are DISMISSED because they are procedurally defaulted. Grounds 8 and 9 areDISMI SSED because they are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' answer due by 9/1/2016. Reply due 45 days after service of answer. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
August 25, 2015 |
Filing
15
ORDERED that respondents' # 13 Motion for enlargement of time is GRANTED. Respondents shall have through September 25, 2015, to file and serve an answer or other response to the petition. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' # 14 Motion to substitute party is GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall substitute Dwight Neven for Catherine Cortez Masto as respondent. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/25/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
June 11, 2015 |
Filing
12
ORDER dismissing Grounds 4, 26, 27, and 28 of 11 Amended Petition. Respondents to respond to 11 Amended Petition within 45 days; Petitioner to reply within 45 days thereafter. Additional exhibits to be filed with separate index. Hard c opies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Las Vegas. Petitioner to serve Respondents copy of all pleadings and include certificate of service. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/11/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) Modified on 6/11/2015 to correct links (KR).
|
December 30, 2014 |
Filing
10
ORDER granting in part 9 request for clarification and extension of time. Amended Petition due by 1/16/2015. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
November 19, 2014 |
Filing
5
ORDER granting 1 IFP application; directing Clerk to file the petition and request to file longer petition; granting request to file longer petition; denying 4 request to transfer action to unofficial southern divisio n; directing Clerk to send 2254 form and instructions to Petitioner (mailed 11/20/2014) and to add the NV AG as counsel for respondents and e-serve respondents with a copy of petition and this order (NEFs sent 11/20/2014). Petitioner to file an amended petition. Respondents' counsel shall enter a notice of appearance within 20 days. See order for details. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR) Modified on 11/20/2014 (KR).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?