Lawver v. Nevada Attorney General
Petitioner: Robert William Lawver
Respondent: Nevada Attorney General and Warden
Case Number: 3:2016cv00379
Filed: June 27, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Valerie P. Cooke
Presiding Judge: Miranda M. Du
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
November 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER granting ECF No. 32 Motion requesting copies; Clerk directed to send petitioner copies of ECF Nos. 27 Minute Order, 28 Mail Returned, 29 Order, 30 Judgment, and 31 Mail Returned (mailed to P on 11/20/2018). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
October 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk directed to enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
August 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDERED that Respondents file a response to ECF No. 4 petition by 10/26/2018; Respondents will file an answer that consolidates any procedural defenses raised together with their response on the merits, in a single response presenting all defenses; Petitioner will have 60 days from service of the answer to dispatch a reply to the Clerk for filing; Clerk is requested and directed to correct: (1) the docket entry in ECF No. 7 to reflect that it is a limited response to the petition, rather than an answer; (2) the docket entry in ECF No. 9 to reflect that it is a response by Petitioner to the Court's prior order (ECF No. 3 ) rather than a traverse to an answer; and (3) the docket entry in ECF No. 13 to reflect that it is a reply to the limited response in ECF No. 7 rather than a traverse to an answer. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
May 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER granting ECF No. 22 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 21 Order. Respondents' supplemental exhibits due by 5/23/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
April 9, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER re pending show-cause inquiry as to whether petitioner's federal habeas petition is subject to dismissal as untimely; respondents must file supplemental exhibits by 5/9/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
December 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER granting ECF No. 18 Motion to Extend Time : The time for respondents to file a response to petitioner's show-cause response (ECF No. 16 ) is extended up to and including December 18, 2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
September 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER denying ECF No. 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Petitioner must show cause in writing by 10/29/2017 why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred; all assertions of fact made by petitioner in response to this show-cause order must be detailed, specific as to time and place, and must be supported by competent evidence; respondents may file a response within 30 days of service; and respondents further must file a corrected index of exhibits by that time, as the index was off by one exhibit at least circa Exhibits 97-99. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 09/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
December 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER - ECF No. 1 IFP Application is granted. Clerk shall file the petition, and the motion for counsel. Clerk shall add AG as counsel for R; and E-serve Rs this order and P's papers. (E-service 12/30/2016; ECF No. 1 via NEF regeneration.) Rs' counsel shall file notice of appearance by 1/20/2017. Rs must file a a response by 2/28/2017 directed only to issues regarding timeliness, including petitioners claim of actual innocence as it pertains to the time-bar issue. Rs must file copies of state court records, together with a separate index as specified herein. A hard copy of any exhibits filed must be delivered to Reno Clerks Office. P's response due 30 days from service of Rs response. Henceforth, P must send a copy of each paper presented to the Court to Rs' attorney, together with a certificate of service. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
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: Lawver v. Nevada Attorney General
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert William Lawver
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: Warden
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?