Evans v. Baker et al
Petitioner: Michael Paul Evans
Respondent: Renee Baker and Nevada Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2017cv00347
Filed: June 2, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: William G. Cobb
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
July 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER denying ECF No. 5 Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus; denying a certificate of appealability; directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
February 14, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER that Respondents' motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 28 , 29 , 30 ) are all granted nunc pro tunc as of their respective filing dates. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
March 1, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER that respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14 ) is granted; Ground 1(a) and Ground 4 are denied on merits; Ground 2(c) and Ground 3(b) are dismissed; respondents' answer on remaining claims due by 4/30/2018; petitione r's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11 ) is denied; and all pending motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 10 , 21 , and 24 ) are granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
June 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER - Clerk shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the motion for leave to file additional pages, and the motion for appointment of counsel. Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents. Clerk shall e-serve the petition and a copy of this order on the respondents. (E-service of petition and order on 6/27/2017.) Answer/response to the petition due by 8/26/2017 ; reply due 60 days after service of answer. Any additional state court exhibits shall be filed with a separate i ndex as specified herein. A hard copy of said exhibits must be forwarded to Reno staff attorneys. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Petitioner's motion for leave to file additional pages is granted. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/27/2017. (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: Evans v. Baker et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Renee Baker
Represented By: Adam P. Laxalt
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
Represented By: Adam P. Laxalt
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 ]
Petitioner: Michael Paul Evans
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?