Smith v. Baker et al
Petitioner: Shaylon Smith
Respondent: Warden Baker and Nevada Attorney General
Case Number: 3:2017cv00579
Filed: September 20, 2017
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
March 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER - Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30 ) is granted. Smith's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 19 ) is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.A certificate of appealability is denied. Clerk is instructed to enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of Respondents and against Smith, dismissing this action with prejudice and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/17/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
July 31, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER that Respondents' unopposed motion for enlargement of time (ECF No. 51 ) to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss is granted nunc pro tunc to July 24, 2019. Respondents' reply, filed on July 26, 2019, is therefore deemed timely. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/31/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
June 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER that Respondents' Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 40 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Exhibits 185 and 186 (ECF Nos. 45 -1, 45 -2) are considered properly filed under seal. 2. The Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL Exhibits 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 259, and 260 (ECF Nos. 45 -3, 45 -4, 45 -5, 45 -6, 45 -7, 45 -8, 45 -9). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
May 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER granting ECF No. 47 Motion to Extend Time : Petitioner will have until July 12, 2019, to either oppose respondents' ECF No. 30 motion to dismiss or move for leave to amend the petition. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
May 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER that Respondents' motion for enlargement of time (ECF No. 31 ) is granted nunc pro tunc to May 3, 2019. Respondents' exhibits filed on May 6, 2019, are accordingly deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/6/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
March 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER granting ECF No. 28 Motion to Extend Time : Answer/response to ECF No. 19 Amended petition due by 5/3/2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/4/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
February 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER that counsel's motion to withdraw ECF No. 25 is granted; Ms. Wilson is terminated as counsel of record for Petitioner; Clerk directed to forward coy of order to CJA Coordinator to secure a replacement panel attorney (e-service on 2/15/2019); Clerk directed to send hard copy of order to petitioner at his institutional address (mailed on petitioner 2/15/2019) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/15/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
January 14, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER granting ECF No. 23 Respondents' second unopposed motion for extension of time to file an answer/response to ECF No. 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents answer/response due by March 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
November 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER granting ECF No. 20 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to ECF No. 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents response/answer due 1/16/2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/5/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
June 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER that Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a counseled Amended Habeas Petition (ECF No. 16 ) is granted; Amended Petition due by 9/7/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
February 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER that ECF No. 13 motion to withdraw FPD as counsel for petitioner is granted; Mary Lou Wilson, Esq. is appointed as counsel for petitioner; amended petition due by 6/8/2018; respondents to file a response/answer to the amended pe tition within 60 days of service; petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from service of the answer; any additional state court record exhibits filed herein; Clerk directed to provide counsel with a single set of electronic copies of all prior fi lings upon request; Clerk directed to send petitioner a copy of this order at the last institutional address in the record (mailed to petitioner at LCC on 2/8/2018). See Order for further details and instructions. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/8/2018.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
January 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER granting ECF No. 11 Motion for Extension of Time. Notice of appearance or otherwise respond to the prior order ECF No. 9 is extended to is 1/29/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/26/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
October 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis ECF No. 1 is denied as moot following upon his payment of the filing fee ECF No. 3 ; Clerk directed to file the petition and accompanying papers; petitioner must show cause in writing why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time barred by 11/05/2017; if petitioner does not timely respond to this order, the petition will be dismissed with prejudice without further advance notice; if petiti oner responds but fails to show with specific, detailed and competent evidence why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely, the action will be dismissed with prejudice; all assertions of fact made by petitioner in response to this show-cau se order must be detailed, must be specific as to time and place, and must be supported by competent evidence; petitioner must attach copies of all materials upon which he bases his argument that the petition should not be dismissed as untimely; unsupported assertions of fact will be disregarded. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/06/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
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: Smith 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: Warden Baker
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 ]
Petitioner: Shaylon Smith
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?