Newell v. Baca et al
| Patrick Newell |
| Isidro Baca and Nevada Attorney General |
| 3:2016cv00662 |
| November 16, 2016 |
| 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
62
ORDER denying ECF No. 6 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC § 2254 by a Person in State Custody; denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/15/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDERED at Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 56 ) is denied. Petitioner's motion to have the matter placed on the calendar (ECF No. 59 ) and motion to submit case for a decision (ECF No. 60 ) are both denied . The petition now stands brief and will be adjudicated in the ordinary course. Respondents' motion to extend time to respond to the motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 57 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER - Petitioner's motion to extend time to file a reply in support of his petition (ECF No. 51 ) is granted. Petitioner must file his reply on or before 7/26/2019. It is further ordered that Respondents' motion for leave to file a document underseal (ECF No. 43 ) is granted. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/29/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER that Respondents' first and second motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 33 and 36 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc; Respondents' third motion for extension of time (ECF No. 40 ) is granted; Respondents must file their answer on or before March 28, 2019; Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court is unlikely to grant any further extensions. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER that Respondents' motion to dismiss ECF No. 18 is denied; respondents answer to the petition due 9/14/2018; Petitioner will have (30) days following service of answer to file reply; Respondents' motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss ECF No. 30 is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/31/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER granting ECF No. 27 Motion to Extend Time : Response to ECF No. 18 Motion to Dismiss due by 5/5/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER that ECF No. 25 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to ECF No. 18 Motion to Dismiss is granted; ECF No. 17 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to ECF No. 6 Petition is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER granting ECF No. 9 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 6 Petition: Respondents' answers due 6/5/2017; denying as moot ECF No. 10 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
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.
