Cardova v. Filson et al
| Vincent Cardova, Sr. |
| Timothy Filson and Nevada Attorney General |
| Adam P. Laxalt |
| 3:2017cv00183 |
| March 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| 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
3
ORDER - The IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. Clerk shall file and e-serve the petition (ECF No. 1 -1) upon the respondents. (E-service 4/6/2017.) Clerk shall file the combined motion for the appointment of counsel and request for an evide ntiary hearing (ECF No. 1 -2) Petitioner's combined motion for the appointment of counsel and request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of the filed petition. (Mailed to P 4/6/2017.) Clerk shall add AG to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents. Answer/response to petition due by 5/21/2017. If an answer is filed, reply due 45 days after service of answer. Any state court record exhibits filed by respondents must be filed with a separate index of exhibits as specified herein and forwarded, to the staff attorneys in the Reno Division of the Clerk of Court. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
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.
